Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Clean Air Act

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied with the administration of the Clean Air Act and with the results obtained; what further action it is intended to take; and by what date it is expected that the air in this country will compare with the best in other industrial countries and cities.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): An encouraging start has been made. But I should like to see faster progress in the worst polluted parts of England and Wales, and that is why I have asked the local authorities concerned to let me know their plans for speeding up the creation of smoke control areas. How soon we shall make the air in this country as clean as the best in other industrial countries I cannot say, but I intend to press on.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great disappointment and frustration among all sections of the community within a 50-mile radius of Manchester, and that feeling is such that the Lancashire Federation of Trades Councils is considering inviting authorities from Pittsburgh? If that invitation is made, will the Minister co-operate?

Mr. Brooke: I did not hear every word of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but if he was asking me whether I will use any powers or influence I can to get the air cleaner, whether around Manchester or elsewhere, the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that no permanent solution to pollution of the atmosphere is possible until energetic steps are taken to deal with the emission of noxious and asphyxiating fumes from diesel oil road vehicles? Will he impress on his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works the urgent need for intensive research by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research towards that aspect of the problem?

Mr. Brooke: That is a matter which I hope to discuss with the Clean Air Council before long.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

Alkali, Etc., Works (Report)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has considered the 95th Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspectors; what general action is to be taken; and, in particular, what action is to be taken in respect of pages 36, 37 and 38 of the Report, with special reference to the 80 kilns and the hard core referred to on page 37.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have, of course, studied this excellent document. With my approval and support, my Chief Alkali Inspector is proceeding in England and Wales on the lines indicated in the Report, including that part of it relating to ceramic works.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends


and I very much appreciate the great improvements which have been brought about in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, but that we still suffer from the serious effects of the inaction of the minority? Will he undertake to use his maximum influence to bring about a higher standard among those people?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. As I said, I want to help in every way I can. When I received my Chief Inspector's Report, I asked him to come to see me, and I discussed it with him. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the progress being made.

Mrs. Slater: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help in authorities like mine, Stoke-on-Trent, if he would give the address of the alkali inspector resident in the area, so that when we got a case we could immediately contact him instead of going the long way round and seeing the Minister, as in the case which I have recently sent to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that it would be wise to short-circuit local authorities who are partners with my Alkali Inspectorate in this matter, but I will certainly take note of what the hon. Lady has said.

Atmospheric Pollution, Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what recent action has been taken about the emission of fluorine compounds into the air in the City of Stoke-on-Trent; what are the future prospects; and what consultations he has had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about its experience at the Fenton Farm.

Mr. H. Brooke: Investigation is continuing and is being extended to include an analysis of the fluorine content of various raw materials used in pottery manufacture, in order to assess their individual contributions to the problem. My right hon. Friend keeps me informed of the progress of the experiments at Fenton Manor Farm.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while we greatly appreciate what has been done,

it is now twenty years since I first raised this matter and that in the meantime people and cattle in the area have continued to suffer? Has not the time arrived when a sense of urgency should be introduced?

Mr. Brooke: At present, there is no evidence of any hazard to public health. There is evidence of harm to cattle and that is what we are investigating. The Alkali Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector of Factories are co-operating in an investigation of these emissions. They are important, but to my mind they are not the most serious element of pollution in the area of Stoke-on-Trent.

Buildings (Framework)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what official restrictions are placed on the use of slotted angles made of steel or aluminium alloy for the framework of buildings in this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am not aware of any restrictions on the use of these slotted angles. A building in which they were used would have to comply with any requirements of the building byelaws.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is the point I was making? Are there any building byelaws which will make it difficult to use this method of construction? If so, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British firms export this type of framework for their building abroad, and that any out of date restrictions should be abolished?

Mr. Bevins: If these angles are used in the construction of houses, those houses will be subject to the byelaws. I am not aware that there are any restrictions against the use of these angles.

Control of Advertisements

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he proposes to make the further regulations, under the Town and Country Planning Act, for the control of advertisements, drafts of which he circulated on 25th February last.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am at present considering certain observations which I have received from the bodies I consulted.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Minister care to tell us when he thinks he will have completed these consultations, and whether he will let us have the regulations before the Summer Recess? He will no doubt be aware that there is some concern among various bodies, such as the C.P.R.E., at the rather long delay that has taken place.

Mr. Brooke: I did not get in all the replies by the date I asked. Although the draft regulations are almost universally agreed in principle, there are specific detailed points which I have been asked to consider further. I would not like to give a promise about laying the new regulations before the Summer Recess, but I am anxious to get on.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether he has now considered the proposals of the advertising interests for a voluntary code of standards applicable to outdoor advertising on business premises; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

Mr. H. Brooke: I understand that representatives of the advertising interests are meeting representatives of the local authority associations within the next two or three weeks to discuss a draft of a voluntary code of standards. I hope they will quickly reach agreement. In that event I shall do all I can to encourage adoption of the code.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say what he intends to do if agreement is not reached quickly? What sort of time limit has he in mind? Can he also state what further action it will be possible for him to take, if necessary?

Mr. Brooke: That is a hypothetical question. This meeting is being held in the middle of next month, and I have expressed my strong hope that agreement will be reached.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister state whether there will be any advisers on art or on the countryside to advise this body,

or will it be merely a utilitarian conference? Will it be a conference which all those who are interested in the countryside can attend?

Mr. Brooke: In this case the matter under discussion is purely concerned with the clutter of advertisements on business premises. We had better read the code first and then reach our decisions upon it.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he will take to restrict the display of electrical advertisement signs, particularly those with vivid red, amber and green colours, in view of the danger that they may be confused, by motorists, with traffic signals.

Mr. H. Brooke: I see no need to strengthen the powers already available to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1948, for restricting the display of advertisement signs likely to be confused with traffic signals.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If organisations representing road users wish to make representations, will the right hon. Gentleman either receive them himself or make arrangements for one of his right hon. Friends to do so?

Mr. Brooke: If anyone feels that this is not working well, I should be glad if he would first send in his views, and then we can consider whether a deputation would be helpful.

Stag Brewery Site, Victoria (Development)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) to what extent the plans for the development of the site of the Stag Brewery, Victoria, contain provision for the parking of cars; and how many car spaces will be made available;

(2) to what extent the plans for the development of the Stag Brewery site, Victoria, will allow for a new street from Victoria Street, to Buckingham Palace Road.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has under consideration certain proposals for


the redevelopment of this site, which have been referred to him as they constitute a departure from the County of London Development Plan. These proposals include provision for 359 car spaces in addition to lock-up garages, and for a new street from Victoria Street to Warwick Row. My right hon. Friend can express no opinion on the merits of the proposals at present.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that this very fine project for a new street in the centre of London, and for over 350 car spaces and underground car parks, will receive the widest approval and appreciation if it proves acceptable?

Planning Appeal Applications

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of planning appeal applications received by his Department during the last twelve months; how these figures compare with the previous twelve months; and the approximate time that is taken to deal with these appeals.

Mr. Bevins: Seven thousand, seven hundred and sixty-eight appeals were received during the twelve months ended 31st May last, and 7,329 during the previous twelve months. The average time taken to determine an appeal is now about six months.

Mr. Loveys: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, but I would point out that a delay of six months causes considerable hardship when it means that during the summer months no building can take place? Is my hon. Friend confident that everything is being done to speed up these appeals, including the full use of the Minister's powers, under the Act, to deal with minor cases by correspondence?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. In fact, the number of these appeals has doubled in the last six years, but my right hon. Friend is trying to reduce the delay in a variety of ways, such as, where the parties agree, dealing with cases on the basis of written representations, by increasing the number of inspectors and by putting out more information about the general planning policy of Her Majesty's Government. We are doing all we can.

Shopkeeper, Barking (Eviction)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of a recent case in Barking where an elderly widow was evicted from her shop by the local authority without compensation, he will take further steps to draw the attention of local authorities to paragraph 6 of Circular 43 issued by his Department in 1956.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am proposing to send a further circular to local authorities very shortly.

Mr. Braine: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most helpful Answer, but in view of the shocking circumstances of this case, would not his proposed action be more effective and pointed if his Circular made it clear that the vast majority of local authorities are humane in the exercise of their discretionary powers?

Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend will be well satisfied with the Circular when he sees it.

Green Belt Areas (Brierley Hill)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will use his powers to prevent any further encroachment on land zoned as green belt areas in the area of the Brierley Hill Urban District Council.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the preservation of green belts, but he must consider on their merits any proposals that may come before him to build in such areas.

Mr. Simmons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Conservatives have controlled the Staffordshire County Council speculative builders have been getting away with murder? Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Wolverhampton Express and Star of 13th June, of a meeting of the Brierley Hill Urban District Council, at which it was said that the "pressure boys" were at work on the county, and the county authority was succumbing to pressure put upon it by the landed interests? Will he look at that report if I send it to him?

Mr. Bevins: I have not seen a copy of the report, but I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend has the interest of preserving green belts very much at heart. It would be wrong for me to comment upon these proposals at the moment.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman state what considerations are borne in mind when deciding between the preservation of a green belt and the claim of a local builder to build on it?

Mr. Bevins: The main consideration is the public interest. If an area has been formally declared a green belt, or it is known that the local planning authority wishes it to be a green belt, it is usually respected. But exceptions are sometimes made for building in the public interest.

Detergents

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a further statement on the problem of the foaming agent in detergents and its effect on sewage purification.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has, as yet, no information beyond that published in April in the Second Progress Report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents. He hopes, however, to be able to make a statement before the summer Recess on the progress of the trials being carried out by the Committee.

Mrs. Slater: I am very pleased to hear that we are likely to have a statement before the Recess. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he has any knowledge of how far a new chemical has been developed which will dissolve the worst qualities of the foaming agent and make it less of a danger to sewerage authorities and to the people who use detergents? Has the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister seen the picture in Reynolds News on Sunday of the effects of detergent foam being blown about in Castle-town?

Mr. Bevins: I am afraid I have not time to read all these newspapers. I think it much more enlightening to read the Second Progress Report of the Committee which makes clear that a new detergent material has been discovered by the manufacturers and that it has been subjected to tests by the Water Pollution

Research Laboratory of the D.S.I.R. In the main those tests have been successful, and we are trying to ascertain whether such tests could be carried out at major sewerage works. We shall know more when we have the results of these inquiries.

National Water Grid

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the case for a national water grid involving the Grand Contour Canal Project, submitted to him by Mr. J. F. Pownall, of Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Brooke: This project, as I understand it, would involve construction of a canal system based on London and extending to Bristol in the West and via Manchester to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the North, with branches to other large cities. It appears that the total length of canal would be some 1,300 miles, and it would require some 26,000 acres of land. Apart from technical difficulties, the value for water supply purposes would be small in relation to the cost in land and money, which would be prohibitive.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Workers (Accommodation)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special action he is proposing to take to help local authorities in districts where there are many vacancies for men and women and where there is no housing accommodation available.

Mr. H. Brooke: It is for local authorities to assess the needs of their districts when considering their housing programmes. I am always ready to look sympathetically at any case where the authority thinks that it ought to build additional houses in order to meet a special and urgent housing need.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a report made recently showed that about a thousand vacancies were available for men and women in a place not very far from here, but that it also said that there was not the slightest chance of their being filled because of the acute


housing shortage? How can the Minister try to impress the House that he is dealing with the housing situation if such a state of affairs can exist in this place?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have further information. The present situation is that I have told nearly every local authority in England and Wales that it can have the full programme it has asked for. If more houses are needed the initiative lies with the local authorities to ask for them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Did the Minister notice that in asking his supplementary question my hon. Friend referred to a place not far from here? Does not that illustrate the fact that industry is concentrated in these conurbations, where there is lack of housing accommodation, whereas in other parts of the country families are moving out, leaving accommodation empty?

Mr. Brooke: I realise what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but he will know what the Government are doing in West South Wales—and doing successfully—to attract industry to these areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is proposed, before the holding of the conference to review the Federal Constitution in 1960, to secure that the Governments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia more fully represent the peoples of those territories.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I do not contemplate before 1960 any change in the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia introduced at the beginning of this year. I am still considering the possibility of changes in the Nyasaland Constitution, and am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Brockway: Since neither of these Legislatures represents the majority of the people, and their fate will be decided for many years by this conference, is not it desirable that steps should be taken before 1960 to see that the democratic right of the people is reflected when their destiny is being determined?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These are valuable bodies, but I am not suggesting that, by themselves, and in their present form, they would provide an adequate method of ascertaining the views of the people of the Territories.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Government of Northern Rhodesia is more representative than ever before but that a similar advance was prevented in Nyasaland because of the widespread revolt against law and order?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Banned Publication

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which publications of the All African Peoples' Conference in Ghana have been banned in Nyasaland; and for what reasons.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The "All-African People's Conference News Bulletin" has been banned as its importation was considered to be against the public interest.

Mr. Brockway: Is not this really rather silly? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does not the Conference at Accra represent a great democratic African movement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of the whole continent? Is it not like the attitude of King Canute to try to prevent these things arising and being reflected among the people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will not follow up the rather inadequate reference by the hon. Gentleman to the rôle of King Canute. The effect of this document on people who hitherto have not been subjected in a great degree to the extravagance of political writings may well be serious to public order.

Devlin Commission (Report)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he now expects the report of the Devlin Commission to be published.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the Report of the Devlin Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not yet received the Report. I hope to receive it about the middle of July and it will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that when the Report of the Commission is published Dr. Hastings Banda and the other detainees will either have charges brought against them or be released?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall certainly await the publication of the Report before making any statement about what I shall do after its publication.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Report will not be delayed so that it is too late to discuss it in this House before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is certainly not the practice of this Government.

Direction of Labour

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what circumstances, in what places, and in what form compulsory public labour is being used in Nyasaland.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The emergency regulations provide for the direction of labour, where required, to remove obstructions on public roads. The power has been very sparingly used, and then only in widely separated areas for very short periods on specific road blocks.

Mr. Thomson: Is not this a degrading form of punishment in which the guilty and innocent are punished alike? Is not the damage which will be done to world opinion greater than the immediate temporary advantage to the authorities in Nyasaland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Unlawful Organisation

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been found guilty of being members of an unlawful organisation since the beginning of the state of emergency; and if he will state the maximum sentence imposed for this offence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the hon. Member has Nyasaland in mind. The figure is 127 up to 19th June, the maximum sentence being two and a half years' imprisonment.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that this organisation, which is now illegal, until recently had the blessing of the Governor in Nyasaland, and, in the long run, will once again come to be recognised by the Governor in Nyasaland? Would he not agree that it might be much better, and would not embitter relations nearly so much, and would encourage a sane and sensible solution, if this policy of repression were stopped before publication of the Devlin Commission's Report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA

Houses

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are now being taken to clear slums and build new houses in St. Helena.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is planned to clear the two remaining blocks of slums in Jamestown and to build further Government cottages including some for rent purchase. Further subsidies for building will also be made.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the last census a very high percentage of houses in St. Helena are substandard? Is he aware that suitable houses could be built at comparatively low cost? Will he authorise a really imaginative and large-scale slum clearance scheme?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman studies my Answer, he will see that I am aware of most of this trouble. Within their resources the Government of St. Helena are getting on with it with vigour.

Fisher's Valley Irrigation Scheme

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the Fisher's Valley Irrigation Scheme in St. Helena.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The plan to construct a dam has been abandoned for the


time being owing to the discovery of underground springs at the proposed site. An alternative scheme for supplying water to Longwood plains by gravity from a point higher up the valley is now under consideration. Meanwhile swamp land below the dam site has been drained and cleared and an open channel has been provided to enable it to be irrigated all the year round.

Teachers

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to provide trained teachers in St. Helena.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a difficult problem to which the Governor has been giving much attention. It would be hard to cover the ground adequately in reply to a Question and I propose to write to the hon. Member. Perhaps he may wish to put down a further Question after receiving my letter.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider two possibilities: first, the paying of higher salaries to the trained St. Helenian teachers already there, in order to keep them on the island, and secondly, a scheme with one of the larger education authorities in this country so that some of our teachers could go to St. Helena for a short time?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that previous dictators have been exiled to St. Helena, could not the right hon. Gentleman be persuaded to go there to look after the dam mentioned in answer to Question No. 24 personally?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that perhaps I should be more profitably engaged here.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

State of Emergency

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now announce the ending of the state of emergency in Kenya, in view of the improved political situation in the colony.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member on 2nd June.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the continuance of the state of emergency in Kenya is impeding peaceful political progress and that the emergency powers are being used not to suppress Mau Mau and K.K.M. but to interfere with the legitimate political activities of Mr. Tom M'Boya, and Mr. Mathenge, who has been rearrested?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add anything to the Answer I have given. I shall be glad when the security situation allows these powers to be withdrawn.

Rawson Mbogwa Macharia

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total cost to Government funds in this country and in Kenya, respectively, of payments in money and grants of educational benefit, travelling and other allowances made to Rawson Mbogwa Macharia since July, 1952; when were these applications for benefit first made; and what were the dates of payment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Kenya Government paid to Macharia and his dependants a total sum of £426 in Kenya and £1,644 in the United Kingdom. Macharia first asked whether the Government would give him protection on 6th November, 1952.
As regards the third part of the Question, in view of the length of the information requested, I will, with permission, write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that it is extremely important that we should know whether these payments were promised before or after the trial at which Macharia gave evidence, could not the Colonial Secretary at least give us that information? If it was before the trial, were the facts communicated to the solicitors who were advising the defence?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has read the case very carefully himself, and I think he knows that in fact the statement was made by Macharia unaided, as the judge noted in his findings at the end of the trial. In an interview on that day—6th November—with the then public prosecutor, Mr. Somerhough, after going over the statement of 6th October, Macharia asked whether the Kenya Government could


give him protection should he give evidence against Kenyatta, and the deputy prosecutor said he would raise the question with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the evidence given by Rawson Mbogwa Macharia at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta was first supplied to the prosecution.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A statement written and signed by Macharia, and dated 6th October, 1952, which was substantially the same as the evidence which he gave at the trial of Jomo Kenyatta, was first seen by the then deputy public prosecutor on 5th November, 1952.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as he goes on using the word "protected" and talks about the promise of protection given on 6th November, before the trial, without saying what arrangements were made for the payment of something like £2,000 of benefit to this witness who testified at the trial, the whole question of the trial comes under acute suspicion, because this man was the one really important witness.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a very complicated matter. I am very ready to discuss it at length, and if he cares to raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment, I will deal with it in the full detail which it deserves.

Round-Table Conference

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the form and nature of the expert advice which is to be made available to the forthcoming Kenya round-table conference; and to what extent he has consulted African opinion in Kenya on this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am still considering this question and have no statement to make at present. Since my discussions with the delegation led by Mr. Odinga in April, Mr. Blundell has given me an account of the preliminary views of his group on this question, including, of course, its African members.

Mr. Robinson: Would the Colonial Secretary agree that it is very desirable that such experts as he does select to advise the Conference shall have the confidence of the African representatives, as well as that of other racial groups?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that is very important, and, indeed, essential for all the experts, whatever may be the final conclusion.

Hola Camp (Disciplinary Inquiry)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the report of the tribunal considering the disciplinary charges against Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disciplinary committee, which has been inquiring into the actions of the Hola Camp commandant and his deputy, is yet in a position to issue a report.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Robinson: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that it is more than six weeks since these disciplinary charges were instituted; and, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General told the House that all the facts were known in this matter, why the delay? Is he now trying to delay publication of the report until the Recess?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I repeat what I said. This is the sort of malicious innuendo that I deeply resent. Nothing of the sort is intended, but the disciplinary inquiry is concerned with the position of two servants of the Crown in Kenya, and it is essential that the charges against them should be properly gone into, and not skimped or hurried in order to meet some need of the hon. Gentleman. The disciplinary inquiry has already been completed and the tribunal is now preparing its report and recommendations. It will then have to be considered by the Governor, his Ministers and by me. I shall arrange for the report and proceedings to be published as a Command Paper. I hope this can be done some time next month, well before the House rises.

Detainees, Manyani (Inquiry)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take against named officers of the Special Branch in Kenya who were found to have committed acts of brutality towards detainees at Manyani, according to the report of the administrative inquiry conducted by Mr. A. P. Jack, Deputy Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These allegations were made by one of the 94 witnesses interrogated by Mr. Jack while investigating 19 allegations by Mr. V. C. Shuter into conditions at Manyani, not a single one of which was established. They were made by one, uncorroborated witness and the Special Branch officers concerned, both of whom had left the service some time ago, were traced after the publication of Mr. Jack's report and denied them. Attempts to identify detainees who might have been concerned in the alleged events failed. In view of the lack of corroboration and conflict of evidence, legal proceedings have not been initiated.

Mr. Robinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the evidences of brutality were two authenticated instances, accepted by Mr. Jack, where detainees had been beaten with a rubber hose on the genitals by ex-officers of the Special Branch. Does he really say, in view of the fact that this evidence was accepted by Mr. Jack, that no action is to be taken?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer which I have given. In fairness to the Government of Kenya, the hon. Gentleman ought to reflect that of 94 witnesses interrogated on 19 allegations, not a single one of the allegations made by Mr. Shuter was substantiated.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. Kenneth Kaunda (Charges)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what charges have been brought against Mr. Kenneth Kaunda in Northern Rhodesia; and with what evidence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The charges were:

(1) convening an unauthorised meeting contrary to Section 30 of the Police Ordinance;

(2) conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose contrary to Section 358 of the Penal Code;

As regards the evidence, I have asked the Governor to forward the case record and copies will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that Mr. Kaunda made a statement before the election in Northern Rhodesia appealing against violence, and that he has done his best to smooth down the antagonisms which have existed in the Territory? Is he aware that, in view of this, these sentences will sound very harsh and oppressive?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not always by words that people ought to be judged. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the case record.

Information Services (Appropriations)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the appropriations for the Information Services in Northern Rhodesia have been cut; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The revised provision of £87,016 in 1958–59 compared with £122,840 in 1957–58 is accounted for mainly by the transfer of responsibility for broadcasting in Northern Rhodesia to an independent Corporation.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the transfer of broadcasting, the appropriations still represent a cut in the Information Services? In view of the present situation in Central Africa, should we not be spending more on our Information Services rather than less?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We work according to a budget. The Government do as well as they can—I think very well—on the money available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

State of Emergency (Declarations)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many Colonial Territories a state of emergency


has been declared since October, 1951; and in how many political leaders have been imprisoned, detained or interned.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In thirteen territories or parts of territories, a number of them being due to inter-tribal troubles and many of them concerned with relatively minor disturbances.
No person is imprisoned save after conviction by the ordinary process of the criminal law for a criminal offence. Moreover, in no case has action been taken against a person for legitimate political activity. Powers of detention have only been used where it has been necessary, by reason of the other activities of the persons concerned, to exercise control over them for the purpose of securing or maintaining public order.

Mr. Hale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that this is the second successive Question which he has failed to answer? He is not asked about the normal processes of criminal law, but about people being detained without trial. Has not this happened under his rule in Colony after Colony, and is it not causing concern, both in our international relations and in the Commission on Human Rights, which body the right hon. Gentleman promised that the Declaration of Human Rights would be applied to the Colonies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir; that is indeed not true. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I was asked to specify how many times people had been arrested or detained because of their political views. I have explained in my Answer that it is impossible to distinguish that, because they have not been detained for their political views, but for other reasons. In regard to the number of disturbances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the very large number of states of emergency under previous Administrations, which shows that this problem is common to all Governments in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Citrus Industry

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official representations have been made to him by the

Federation of the West Indies concerning the effects of dollar liberalisation proposals upon the West Indian citrus industry, which was developed as a result of undertakings given by this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he is taking to safeguard the position of the West Indies citrus industry, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to liberalise trade with the dollar area.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans he has been preparing to offset the effects on the citrus industry of the West Indies of the dollar trade liberalisation policy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A West Indian delegation led by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation is at present discussing the question of safeguards to the citrus industry. The delegation have drawn attention to the risks to which their market in this country would be open in the event of complete dollar liberalisation. The position regarding liberalisation is, broadly, that quantitative restrictions on imports can only be imposed so long as they are justified on balance of payments grounds. As the discussions are still continuing, I am sure the House would not expect me to make any further statement about the probable outcome at this stage. But I can say this. Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of the citrus industry to the West Indies and are in the present Conference discussing means of helping the West Indian Governments to build it up so that it can meet fair competition from any quarter.

Mr. Braine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which, of course, one recognises has been given in the middle of the negotiations, may I ask if he would urge upon his colleagues in the Government that the minimum requirement to save this industry is to maintain the quantitative restriction on dollar imports for sufficiently long to enable the industry to make adjustments in its arrangements over a period of years?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is one of the matters that is being considered by the


Conference, and I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to give an answer now.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Colonial Secretary bear in mind that in recent years some degree of progress towards viability has been made in the West Indies by long-term contracts and secure markets; and, in view of the fact that the islands have now embarked upon this great venture of federation, will he realise how very important it is that we should give them every assistance to maintain their basic industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly agree.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Answer of the Secretary of State mean that in these negotiations Her Majesty's Government intend to make proposals with the object of safeguarding the economy of the West Indian Federation from the competition of economically more developed countries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not read into my Answer more than I intended. I fully recognise the importance of the industry, and the historic ties of that industry with the United Kingdom. One of our tasks is to reconcile the economic interests of the West Indies with our international obligations. I am hopeful that that can be done, but I am sure that it would be premature to go beyond the Answer I have given.

Mr. Fisher: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that unrestricted United States competition in the United Kingdom would be completely disastrous for the West Indian citrus industry? Will he confirm, if possible, the undertaking given to the West Indian Ministers by the present Lord Chandos when he was Secretary of State?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I certainly will; and also the undertaking I have given myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Book (Confiscation)

Mr. Delargy: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what authority the Governor of Cyprus has confiscated 5,000 copies of a book published in Greece, the title of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By the authority of Section 58A of the Cyprus Criminal Code Law.

Mr. Delargy: Does not the Colonial Secretary realise that the withholding of this book, which is about the experiences of a man detained for eighteen months without trial and without charge in a camp in Cyprus, is most unjust? Is it not also a very silly decision, because sooner or later the book will be published, and it is now getting an exceedingly good advertisement and will have a much wider circulation than it normally would have had?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I fully support the action of the Governor in this matter. The Governor's liberal approach to the problems of Cyprus is well-known. The circulation of this book in Cyprus would certainly stir up feelings entirely contrary to the spirit of constructive co-operation which flowed from the London Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Incident, Katwe

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to set up a court of inquiry into the incident that took place recently in Uganda when police opened fire on a crowd of persons watching a wrestling match.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the right hon. Member refers to the riot which took place at Katwe on 4th June, on which I gave a full report in my reply to the hon. Members for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and Flint, East (Mrs. E. White) on 11th June. In the light of this report I do not consider that a court of inquiry into the incident is necessary or desirable.

Mr. Dugdale: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that my information, obtained from eye witnesses and from my own visit to the place shortly after the shooting, differs in many respects from his? Is he also aware, in particular, that the crowd was not engaged in any political activity but was watching a wrestling match and dancing, and that ail it did was to break a regulation that there should not be more than 250 people together? Finally, is he aware that the


police opened fire without reading the Riot Act? Does he think that this is desirable, and that if such things happened in this country there would not be an inquiry? Why should there not be an inquiry if they happen in Uganda?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I made a long statement on this matter in reply to a Question and I have nothing to add to that statement. I cannot accept the value of the sources from which the right hon. Gentleman claims to have his information. I have proof that those for whom he claims to speak repudiate his right to speak on their behalf. The best comment upon his journey is an article in the Uganda Argus which described him as "an innocent abroad".

Mr. Creech Jones: Was there not once in the Colonial Office a very healthy practice that when serious events of this kind occurred involving loss of life an independent inquiry was held? Has the Colonial Secretary abandoned that practice altogether?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, but if the right hon. Gentleman were still occupying my post he would get his facts correct. No one was killed on this occasion.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not possible for the Colonial Secretary, instead of trying to score runs, to tell the House a little more fully what is happening? Is it not the case, if people are fired on in a crowd for whatever reason, that that ought to be a most unusual occurrence in a Colonial Territory? Are the men against whom the firing was directed being charged with riotous assembly or some charge of that sort? In other words, how are these facts to become known before the Colonial Secretary condemns my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of the nineteen persons charged in connection with the riot at Katwe eleven have appeared before the magistrates, three have been released for lack of evidence, four have been remanded, six are awaiting a court hearing, and two are still in hospital.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that no one has yet been found guilty of the charges brought against him, does the Colonial Secretary think he is justified in the strictures which he has applied to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Dugdale: Although the Colonial Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that on one was killed, is he aware that I have seen a woman with shrapnel wounds in her breast as the result of the shooting by the police. Will he take this matter a little more seriously?

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the earlier reply of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary showed that the whole matter is sub judice, are we not stretching the bounds of order in pursuing the matter in this House at all, and are not the imputations being cast by hon. Members opposite wholly unjustified by the facts of the situation?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about the facts, but it did appear, from the Colonial Secretary's last answer—if I understood him aright—that some of these people are on remand, which means that the court is still to consider their cases. Presumably that would put these cases sub judice.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Was not my right hon. Friend's original Question to ask the Colonial Secretary to hold an inquiry? Is it not a fact that such inquiries used to be held in the past?

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to the same point of order. If it be a fact that all these matters are sub judice, so that the question of whether anyone was pursuing unlawful conduct at the time when the shooting took place is still before the courts and not decided, was it not most improper of the Colonial Secretary to make a retort to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) which implied that his statement of their innocence of any offence only showed that he was an innocent abroad?

Mr. Speaker: The purpose of the rule relating to criminal matters which are sub judice is that this House should be scrupulously careful not to prejudice the trial of persons who may be accused by making statements about them. That is the general rule—

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The House has generally shown a certain reticence about such matters if they are even connected with a criminal prosecution.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. That was exactly the point which I was putting to you and on which I would like your Ruling. Was not the statement to which I referred, made by the Colonial Secretary, highly prejudicial and embarrassing to the defence in any proceedings which are now going on?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know enough about these things to express a view on them. It seems to me to have been a remark directed more against the right hon. Member for West Bromwich than against any of the persons involved in the riot.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the most unsatisfactory statement made by the Colonial Secretary, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

EURATOM

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister how many meetings at Government level have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Euratom since the Euratom-United Kingdom Treaty was signed; and to what extent there is co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Consortium to further develop exports to Europe of nuclear reactors, nuclear materials, instruments and knowledge of different reactor techniques.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A Joint Working Group of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Euratom Commission has held its first meeting and has put in hand the practical task of developing fields of collaboration between the two organisations. There has not yet been any occasion since its establishment was announced in May for a meeting of the Continuing Committee for Co-operation.
Close contact is maintained between Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority and industrial firms on the question of nuclear exports to Europe and other parts of the world.

Mr. Mason: Does the Prime Minister think that is sufficient? Is he not aware that the consortium, to say the least, is finding it financially disturbing at the moment, that it has been promised only 14 nuclear reactors compared with the

previous promise of 19 and only managed to export one to Europe as compared with the United States which is going to export 6 to 8, an order worth £129 million? Why are the Government so complacent about Euratom? Is it not time that they stepped in and tried to help Euratom?

The Prime Minister: In fact no orders for power stations have been placed under the American Euratom agreement and Euratom as an institution does not place orders. Those are placed as between the separate countries. I regard this as a very important collaboration, but the immediate task is practical measures of collaboration, which are being studied by the Joint Working Group of officials.

Mr. Mason: Is there not provision in the agreement for the Government to step in on a higher level than this technical collaboration? How much help is there to be to the consortium in this respect?

The Prime Minister: It is the general experience that meetings of Ministers are most fruitful after inquiry into the problems by officials on both sides.

AFRICAN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing complexity of colonial affairs, he will now appoint a Minister of State solely responsible for the affairs of Colonies and Protectorates in Africa.

The Prime Minister: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. While the appointment of Ministers of State in different Departments has certainly helped to reduce the pressure, yet this device has not, in practice, affected the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Hola debate disclosed a situation in which either the machinery did not exist for the Secretary of State to know what was happening, or the Secretary of State was culpably negligent? Is the Prime Minister saying that he is proposing to take no further action to see that a situation like that of Hola does not arise again?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the two deductions made by the hon. Member, but I perfectly accept, as I think is well known to us all, that while assistant Ministers or Ministers of State can very much help and do much, we have not yet found a solution of the problem which remains, that ultimate responsibility must remain with the Secretary of State. That is still a very difficult problem with the amount of travelling and additional work put on Secretaries of State nowadays.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the changing form of the Commonwealth today there is a case for reviewing the work of the Commonwealth Relations Office on the one side and the Colonial Office on the other, and considering in the long run the desirability of amalgamating the two, perhaps under the title "Commonwealth Office" with two or three Ministers of State operating in control of the oceanic regions assigned to them?

The Prime Minister: That has been considered and no doubt we shall have to think of it again. I sometimes think that many of these suggestions tend to add to rather than to reduce the total responsibility lying on the Minister in charge.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever the merits of this suggestion, is not the real difficulty about the deterioration of relations in Africa today due to the policies followed by the Colonial Secretary?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I could not accept that either.

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Awbery: asked the Prime Minister if he will, in view of the growing importance and extension of aviation throughout the world, consider the creation of a separate Ministry of Civil Aviation for the purpose of dealing exclusively with questions of civil aviation.

The Prime Minister: The problem of the correct organisation of Government is of course a difficult one. But the best time for change is at the beginning of a Parliament and not towards its end.

Mr. Awbery: Is not the Prime Minister aware that aviation has grown to such proportions and such importance that it has become necessary that there should be two departments instead of one? Would he give further consideration to this problem?

The Prime Minister: I am quite aware of all that, but I still say I do not think this would be a particularly good moment to embark on such a change.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sequence of events has placed the aircraft industry in a very difficult position? Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, when he comes back as Prime Minister after the General Election, perhaps something can be done for the industry?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the problem. Like many others, we are trying to deal with it by committees of Ministers and by the Cabinet itself; but I fully realise that, just as we have sometimes made amalgamations of Ministries, conditions might change and it might be desirable to make further groupings. All that requires much study to which I have given a great deal of preliminary work.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the Prime Minister agree that civil aviation is a form of transport and therefore it is not unnatural that it should be part of the Ministry of Transport? There are constitutional and Parliamentary objections to the needless multiplication of Ministers. Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman be careful—I am sure he will—about a needless multiplication of Ministers which would upset the balance of things in proceedings in this House?

The Prime Minister: I agree with that, but what we have done in recent years has been rather in the opposite direction—an amalgamation of Ministries. There may be conditions where, owing to changing circumstances, a result which is produced is not altogether satisfactory and in that case, of course, it would need looking at again.

PRESIDENT DE GAULLE

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the official communication he made to President de Gaulle on 22nd June.

The Prime Minister: I made no official communication to President de Gaulle on 22nd June.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the content of the message which was passed by the British Ambassador in France to General de Gaulle on 22nd June—and if not, why not?

The Prime Minister: I have made no such communication. A message was sent, but it did not deal with any current political problems. It was a communication of a formal character.

Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister has admitted that a communication did pass. That contradicts his earlier Answer. Will he tell us what was the nature of the communication?

The Prime Minister: I said that no communication was made by me to President de Gaulle. I was asked in Question No 48 if I would publish the communication made by me to President de Gaulle. If the hon. Member referred to a communication which was made it was of the character of a formal kind which it is not customary to publish.

Mr. Gaitskell: Why is the Prime Minister being so coy about this matter? Is he attempting to evade responsibility for the official communication made to General de Gaulle? Why should he not tell us what it contained?

The Prime Minister: I should be perfectly ready, as the right hon. Member knows, to speak about it to him, but it would be contrary to precedent and practice to publish the terms of the communication at the present moment.

Mr. Bevan: Did the communication originate with the Prime Minister or with the Ambassador?

The Prime Minister: It was approved by the Government, but was of a character which it is not customary or according to precedent to publish.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's reticence is connected with the fact that he has not yet had a reply from the President? In that case we should understand it. May we have an assurance that when a reply has been received he will make a statement to the House?

The Prime Minister: I shall make a statement as soon as, according to precedent, it is customary to do so.

CHANCELLOR ADENAUER

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what official communications he has received from Chancellor Adenauer regarding a possible meeting of Western Heads of Government.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Healey: Could the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take the first opportunity of telling Chancellor Adenauer that the recent criticisms he has made of the British Prime Minister in the American Press must have been a calculated campaign to impair relations between the two countries? Will he take the Chancellor by the arm and tell him that "enough is enough"?

THE VICTORIA CROSS

Mr. Simmons: asked the Prime Minister if he will now reconsider the position of holders of the Victoria Cross who find themselves in needy circumstances by entirely disregarding war disability pensions in the determination of means.

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which, as the House knows, has often been raised in the past; but I am quite prepared to look into it again.

Mr. Simmons: Does the Prime Minister realise that the war disability pension is disregarded for Public Assistance and things of that kind? Will he see that Victoria Cross holders are not put in a worse position than the recipients of National Assistance? Will he look at the general position of holders of the Victoria Cross who are in impecunious circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I have not had time to go into all the details, but I have seen some first statement of them. They are rather complicated, but I will do my best to look into the matter and to see if a solution can be found. I do not think the hon. Member would wish to press me on this matter at the moment.

Mr. Turton: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is a great objection to these conditions and is he aware that considerable feeling in the country that it is distasteful to subject holders of the Victoria Cross annuity to a scrutiny as to means? Will he consider whether opportunity should not be taken for a more complete revision of this Pay Warrant?

The Prime Minister: It is a little more complicated than that. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have a particular case in mind they will write to the National Assistance Board, or to me, and I shall do my best to look into the matter.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delays due to the technical examination of the problem of nuclear test control, he will propose to President Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev that they should now issue a declaration that the three Governments do not intend to resume nuclear explosions pending the establishment of an effective system of control, including a limited number of unrestricted inspections.

The Prime Minister: Our chief aim must be to reach a comprehensive agreement with an effective system of control. Meanwhile the Conference is continuing and no tests are taking place.

Mr. Henderson: Could not the Prime Minister agree that the making of this declaration by the three Heads of Government would itself greatly facilitate the achievement of agreement on control and inspection of nuclear armaments at the Geneva Conference?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite so sure about that. The Geneva Conference is going along slowly but steadily. Of course, there will come a point when there may be some vital decisions to be taken. I still believe that there is every chance of success. If there is, it is by far the biggest prize at which we can

aim, because it gives us not merely the cessation of tests, which is good, but for the first time a system of international control upon which all future disarmament must be based. I feel that that prize is worth waiting for and working for, because it is the biggest of all.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that precisely because many of us have hopes that there will be a three-Power agreement on tests we feel that there is much to be said for my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that the negotiations may still take a long time and that it is vitally important that meanwhile no further tests should be made? Will he bear in mind the desirability of the kind of declaration which my right hon. and learned Friend suggests?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear it in mind as one possible course if full agreement cannot be reached, but I am still hoping that full agreement can be reached.

Mr. Gaitskell: With respect, the Prime Minister has misunderstood the point. The point is that, however long the negotiations may take, none of the three Powers would resume tests, pending the negotiations. Is there not a great deal to be said for that declaration?

The Prime Minister: We have made that declaration, with the United States Government—that so long as the Conference was continuing we would not make tests. If we could make that larger, of course. It is simply a question of what is the best method of negotiation and I do not think that at this moment for me to make this proposal would be the best method of bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion, but I do not rule that out as one of the methods which may be used in these discussions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Transfer and compensation of certain officers) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

New Clause.—(TRANSFER AND COMPEN- SATION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS.)

(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of such existing officers so affected (hereinafter called "designated officers") as the Minister may designate.

(2) Provision shall be made by regulations made by the Treasury, for the payment by the Commission of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any national service of theirs would be designated officers, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any order under section six of this Act.

(3) Regulations under the foregoing subsection may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation under this section is to be made and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations

(4) In this section—
existing officer" means an officer serving a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section;
officer" includes the holder of any place, situation or employment.

(5) Any regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Committee may be helped if I endeavour to clear up what may be a

certain amount of confusion. In the first place, hon. Members who were in the House 24 hours ago may think that we are resuming the very interesting debate which we then had on the subject of transfer and compensation for certain officers. However, I can assure the Committee that the atmosphere in which we shall discuss this matter and the standard of values which we now have are very different from those of 24 hours ago.
Secondly, it may appear to someone who has looked cursorily at two Clauses with the same marginal heading that they are exactly the same. In fact, they are very different, and the operative words are those which appear in line 4 of this Clause:
as the Minister may designate".
It may also help the Committee in coming to a conclusion on this extremely important matter if hon. Members know something about its history. It originally came before the Standing Committee by way of a new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and indentical with the second new Clause upon the Notice Paper—Transfer and compensation of officers—standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison):
(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of any such existing officers.
(2) Provision shall be made, by regulations made by the Treasury, for the payment by the Commission of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any national service of theirs would be existing officers, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Regulations under the foregoing subsection may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation under this section is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
(4) In this section—
existing officer" means an officer serving a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section;


officer" includes the holder of any place, situation or employment.
(5) Any regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is to say, it provided generally for compensation for officers of the new town corporations who lost their jobs as a result of the change of control.
That new Clause had a full debate over two days in Committee and towards the end of that debate the Minister said:
The Government's intention is to ask each of the development corporations to look ahead and to try to pinpoint cases in which they think any individual members of their staffs may possibly be left high and dry. There may be few of these cases, but there may be a small core of individual cases. We will do that. We will ask the new town corporations to do that and to consider each case on its merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
I have no doubt that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to honour that underaking, but we have put down a new Clause to be helpful and to enable him to do so. We have done that since he has rejected the general principle which we and the hon. Member for Crosby and all right-thinking people accept, the principle that there ought to be a general compensation, but has admitted the principle of particular compensation for what he has called the hard core of cases.
It is not only kindness to the right hon. Gentleman that has led us to table this new Clause. It is important that the staffs of the corporations should know precisely what their position is to be. This is probably the most important feature of the whole problem. This is a matter not only of the harm and unfairness which are caused to officers who may suffer as a result of the transfer of control of the new towns. It is much more important from the point of view of new towns policy, the whole new towns movement, all the corporations and all the staffs, and not only those who will be affected in the next few years. All those have been suddenly hit with a very great feeling of uncertainty about their future prospects. That is bound to have a most demoralising effect upon the whole staff.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the Clause will not make things very much better, because it will still leave uncertainty about whether they are to be designated. That is not our fault.

It is not the fault of the hon. Member for Crosby. Whatever one may think of the hon. Gentleman—he is not a person with whom I often find myself in agreement—one cannot deny his political courage. He moved his new Clause in Committee, and he divided in favour of it with my hon. Friends and I against the Government. That is to his credit. From the Standing Committee proceedings I could quote many interesting observations made by the hon. Gentleman with which I entirely agree. However, I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by doing that, nor do I want to rub in the difference between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
I will recapitulate the arguments about compensation for loss of office. I mentioned a few moments ago that we were discussing this only 24 hours ago against the background of what happens in big business. I do not want to quote again the illustrations given then about the different levels of compensation offered to displaced directors of one sort and another, ranging from £83,000 tax-free down to a humble, measly £30,000. That is what happens in private enterprise when people are displaced from office.
There is another example, again topical in the context of our discussions yesterday, involving our old friends the Institute of Directors. The Institute of Directors has an axe to grind—I do not use that phrase in an offensive sense—in dealing with what happens to directors of private water companies when a grouping takes place under the guidance of the Ministry, or under the directions of the House of Commons by a Private Bill, as a result of which directors lose their office.
There is not the slightest argument about whether they should receive compensation; that is common ground. However, there has been discussion in the House of Commons recently about whether the compensation should be based on seven times or five times their annual earnings. That is purely a matter of degree. It is not a matter of principle.
The principle of compensation is also beyond argument in many negotiated agreements in private industry. Although one may criticise the level of compensation in the recent proposals in connection with the cotton industry, the principle of compensation has been accepted without question by the House of Commons.


That is not only affecting directors, but also workpeople in the industry.
Therefore, the principle of compensation for redundancy is to be found quite generally in private enterprise administering a public service, such as the water companies, and private enterprise dealing with purely business and commercial affairs, such as breweries and other concerns mentioned in the discussions yesterday.
In local government the principle is even more firmly established and more deeply embedded in our legislation. The Clause in the form in which it was moved in Committee was identical with Section 60 of the Local Government Act, passed by the House of Commons as recently as last year. When the House of Commons considered the complicated problems of local government reform, the revision of local government boundaries, the changes which may take place in the allocation of functions which may lead to the displacement of officers, and so on, the principle was accepted that there should be compensation.
It is nothing new. It goes back certainly to the Local Government Act, 1933, and, I have no doubt, a good deal further. Principles of compensation have been laid down in Orders by the Minister and accepted by the House of Commons. Throughout the public service and, as far as one can tell, throughout a very wide range of private enterprise, compensation for redundancy is nowadays accepted as a principle. It is something about which there is very little argument.
3.45 p.m.
Why should this little section of people be excluded? People working for the new town corporations are to receive nothing if they lose their jobs as a result of the change-over from the corporations to the Commission. Two arguments can be advanced. I shall be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee in stating those arguments as dispassionately as I can.
The first argument is that, when people were appointed to new town corporations, they went into what was essentially a development job, which was not going to last and which they knew would not last. Therefore, they went into it with their eyes open. What has

happened is not a change of Government policy affecting their positition, as takes places with water grouping, but a natural effluxion of events which everyone anticipated.
The second argument is that, as a corollary to the fact that this was a temporary job, officials were paid more than they would have received had they remained in local government service or in the kind of jobs which they had if they entered corporation service from the private sector. On the second argument, which is the simplest to dispose of, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is true? Is it true that the rate of remuneration within new town corporations is higher than the rate of remuneration in the general service of local government? I suspect that it is not higher. At one time probably it may have been higher, but I doubt it now from the little information I have. Almost certainly the second argument is not valid.
What about the argument that this was essentially a development job and that, therefore, people expected that it would come to an end? I gave the answer to that in Committee? I based it on as near first-hand information as I could obtain, because this was precisely the point which I, among others, had to deal with when I was a member of the Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation and had to try to persuade people to enter the service of the Corporation. Being men with careers to make, one of the first questions they asked was. "What is our future? Why should we give up a safe billet, perhaps in the service of a large county borough, where we are chief officer or deputy chief officer, with the almost certainty of promotion to the position of chief officer? Why should we give up that sort of job to come to a new town Corporation, which is an uncertain thing? It may be a flop. The whole thing may fail as a result of the litigation now taking place. The whole thing may fail through some financial crisis. Why should we come into the service of the corporation?" That was a very real problem for the boards when they had to recruit staff.
In our case we were triumphantly successful. I cannot claim that the people who served Hemel Hempstead Corporation were better than the people who served other corporations, but they were


outstanding men and were among the top people in their professions. They came to us because they desired to create something. In this sordid world, in which one always thinks that people are activated only by financial motives, it is well to recognise that there are people with pride in their profession, who want to be architects or engineers and who want to create something which will be a little more of a permanent memorial to them than the mere day-to-day routine of administration. They came in because the job appealed to them and they wanted to try to make it succeed.
I said to them, and I am afraid that I misled them, "If you succeed in this job, you need not worry. If the new towns are a success, it will be such a tremendous triumph that this will mark the beginning of a new movement, so that when you have completed your job in one new town you will find the new towns that will have started in other parts of the country clamouring for your services, because you will be the people who made Hemel Hempstead."
I miscalculated abominably there. I never had much doubt that the new towns would not be a success, but I certainly did not think that any policy so negative and defeatist as that of the right hon. Gentleman would be followed. I never believed it possible that, in spite of the success of the new towns, the Government would take a policy decision not to have any more of them, and it is that decision, of course, that is primarily responsible for this problem.
These are men who have been in new town service now for ten years and more. They still have something to contribute in the new town movement. They have devoted to it the best years of their lives, and could certainly offer something priceless to other new towns. They have been through all the problems of the creation of new towns, all the teething troubles, and could offer something that other corporations would be glad to have. Therefore, were there to be other new towns, there would be no problem, but because the Government have killed the movement there are no other new towns for these men to go to.
These men are ten years and more older than they were. They have got out of the swim of local government. They

have not been going round in the local government circus, applying for jobs. They are not recognised as being within what might be called promotion potential of local government, in which everything is watched so carefully by those responsible for making appointments. In relation to local government work these men have rusted for ten years—though they have not rusted in the work of new town development—and that is why they cannot get jobs now. They cannot get jobs now in local government because they were prepared to help in the new towns.
As I say, I do not want to make this plea only on the basis of what is just to the men to whom we owe so much, although I should have thought that that would appeal to the Committee. I am shocked that apparently only one hon. Member opposite cares sufficiently for justice and fair play to this splendid body of men and women as to be prepared to stand out on this issue. However, I do not want merely to labour that.
The other aspect is probably the most important—not justice, but calculated self-interest. Although the Government may kill the idea of any future new towns, there are still some that are in process of developing, and the effect of this decision not to have any clear-cut methods of compensation is the most demoralising thing that could happen to the staffs here. Here we are considering men of whom many are in their forties or fifties. They are men, outstanding in their professional careers, who have entered into new town service. They see now what is happening to their fellows in Crawley, Hemel Hempstead and the other new towns that are getting on towards completion, and that will cause difficulty throughout the whole of the new town system.
These people will not now be thinking primarily of devoting their lives to building up a new town of which they can be proud. Instead, for the sake of their families, they will be thinking of how they can get out as quickly as possible—and while they are reasonably young—and get into something safe, such as local government. Once they are in local government they are safe. They are protected from the Minister. Even were the right hon. Gentleman to bring


about mergers into gigantic all-purpose local authorities, they are protected—whatever he does—by the Local Government Act, 1948. But so long as they remain in the new towns they are not protected at all. They have not even the elementary rights of a director of a water company that is wound up by special order of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have got themselves into a fantastic situation, and the effects on the remaining staffs must be quite demoralising.
As we all know, the Minister is no fool—that is about the nicest thing that I have said of him for many months—and I can only believe that this is a deliberate attempt to throttle the new towns in an indirect way, because, without coming to the House, without having a great clash on a matter of policy, without being accused of being the man who has cut the throats of the new towns, quietly, by tightening the string, he can create an impossible situation for the corporations.
How will the corporation of a new town whose creation is likely to take five or ten years be able to keep its staff or to replace it in the face of the knowledge that personnel now have that if they are found to be redundant and lose their jobs they have no certainty of getting compensation? Of course, if they get another job, compensation does not arise. It is always part of the compensation orders that those getting other jobs do not get compensation.
We are dealing, therefore, with those who will not get other jobs. They will fail, not because they are not outstanding in their work but because they have reached an age, which many of us have reached, when the outside world decides that they may be all right at their own particular job but too old to start a new job or to go back to the job they left ten or fifteen years ago. We all know that that is what many establishment committees and other bodies of local authorities will feel about the man of 40 or 50 who comes to them seeking a chief officers job.
We are, therefore, moving this new Clause as a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will apply this sort of means test, and ask the corporations—I suppose that this is how it will have to work and, although I do not

pretend to like it, if it is all that the Minister will do, let us accept it—to line them up. They will say to this one, "You ought to be able to get a job", and, to another, "You look unemployable. We do not give you much chance of getting anything so we will put your name up to the Minister and try to get you a hand-out."
That is rather degrading treatment to mete out to an architect or an engineer, and to all those who have worked so hard to build the new towns; the men who have come into the movement not because they were the flotsam and jetsam of local government, but because they were the top people, the men of adventure who were not content just to go on ticking over but were prepared to go into something new. Those are the men who will be lined up and, if they are the hard core—to use the right hon. Gentleman's happy phrase—they will get a hand-out.
We want the Minister to give us something in the Bill that will at least define what he has to do, and put on him and his successors some responsibility to see that it is done. To leave it just to the terms of an undertaking, without any Parliamentary authority for what is to be done, without any clearness as to where the money is to come from, will create more alarm and despondency than ever.
There must be a proper system of compensation. That is vitally important to the whole future of the new towns. Unless the Minister is prepared to make a statement that will allay the present anxiety he should just go ahead and introduce a Bill to abolish the new towns altogether. Unless he creates a proper system of compensation it will be imposible for these men to try to keep going in the atmosphere of instability, uncertainty and fear that he himself is creating.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I, too, rise to ask the Government to accept this Clause. It is not only the chief officers, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred, who are involved; it is the staff all the way down the line. That the Bill has already created great fears in the minds of the staff is evidenced by the fact that the trade union concerned has been publicly


protesting, and some of these people are already seeking new employment.
These men did not go into the new town corporations only because of the extra money. I know of highly-skilled technical people who went into this employment because they enjoyed working on a brand-new idea, the building up of new towns to enable people to live better and fuller lives. Some of these officers are already seeking other employment. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say, as he said on 14th May:
…I can give an undertaking that, from new town funds, whether from the development corporations or from the Commission, help will be given, if it is needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
That is not the way in which the problem was dealt with when the nationalisation Measures were put through. Men who lost their jobs, or even those who had to take within the newly nationalised industries jobs at lower salaries, were given compensation rights. It seems to me to be only fair that if, by deliberate Government policy, we completely change the whole set-up in the new towns as a result of which some men lose their positions or have to take posts at a lower salary, they ought to be entitled by law, laid down in the appropriate Act, to compensation for any loss they may have suffered. It is because the Minister has so far refused to put any such provision into the Bill that some of us are pressing him. I hope that he will have had time to give further consideration to this matter since the Bill was in Committee.
This situation is worrying many good men who should not be treated in this way as a result of a sudden change in Government policy. Most of them, naturally, expected that they would have a good many more years in the job of building up the new towns, and that when it was over they would be absorbed into the local authority organisation to which, under the law as it stands now, they would have been transferred. But the Government have completely changed that. They are to nationalise the new towns by putting them all under the control of a Commission which will run the show and which will employ some of the staff but, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have

admitted, will want to get rid of others of the staff. We say that if the Government do that they must, as a matter of elementary justice, compensate those people who may suffer as a result of the change.
We have not so far been able to get much change out of the Government on this point, and I press it strongly. I would point out that already the organisation which represents these people, N.A.L.G.O., has been protesting. In addition, the published documents of the organisations interested in town planning called attention months ago to the dangers into which the Bill puts the staff of new town corporations.
As a matter of elementary fairness, this new Clause and the next one—Transfer and compensation of officers—ought to be included in the Bill, just as in the past Parliament has included Clauses providing for the compensation of people who lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in income as a result of a change in policy instigated and implemented by the Government of the day That seems to me to be such an elementary principle that I am amazed that the Minister did not think of it in the first place and has not been prepared to include such a provision in the Bill, even at this late stage.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something more hopeful when he replies. If he does not do so, I ask the Committee to agree that this piece of elementary justice should be put into the Bill on behalf of staff who may be displaced.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I support this new Clause because we shall be failing in our duty if we do not make some provision for these officers who are displaced.
All of us who have some association with the new towns and their operation know the feelings of some of these officers who have done so much in the course of their development. When the Bill was in Committee it was said that we had set out on a new venture in accordance with the 1946 Act. Here we have men and women who are having to leave responsible positions which they took to further this new venture, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have sung the praises of these people for the work that they have done in these new towns


I am at a loss to understand how these new towns could have reached their present stage of development if it had not been for the efficiency exercised by these people who brought all their valuable knowledge to the service of these towns.
I am confident that the determination which I have seen in the building up of the new town in my constituency has been operating in all the new towns throughout the country. It is easy to say that these people who undertook this responsibility knew the risk that they were taking when they accepted these responsible positions. Of course, there may have been some risk, as there always is in any kind of employment, but to say that such contracts were for only a limited period is begging the question.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is not in the Chamber. He made out a good case in Committee on behalf of these people and I agree with the sentiments that he expressed when he moved his proposd new Clause and said that these people were engaged for an indefinite period and that the period was in no way at an end. It would be ludicrous, to say the least, to suggest that one could have speculated on the political future of these new towns. Yet it would appear that some people, including the Minister, really believe that these officers who are holding responsible positions should have been able to forecast how long they would be required in the service of new town development.
Nobody yet knows how long it will take a development corporation to complete its job. The Minister has certain powers. He can say that, when it reaches a particular target figure of population set by him, then the corporation should be wound up. We have had that experience in regard to Newton Aycliffe. In the first place, it was said that, at a particular figure, the Minister would determine to wind up the corporation, but now it has been extended, and we are very grateful for that. But even a set figure may not be achieved for some years, and it may take longer even than the Minister expects. These things are not as easy as some people think. It is difficult to assess the nature of the problem and difficult to visualise quite what will be necessary.
It was said in Committee that many of these employees who are to be displaced

came from the local government service, and my hon. Friends have reminded us that this is so. Many of them were, perhaps, over 40 years of age. What chance have many of them, after taking responsible positions and being employed with the corporations for ten, twelve or even perhaps, fifteen years, of finding another post within the local government service or of going back to the work they were doing at the time they left? If these people wish to go back to local government again, they will face serious competition in finding employment. After years of experience in local government. I believe that many of the young people now working in the local government service are constantly looking ahead to the positions to which they may aspire, and the employees who may be displaced as a result of the Government's Bill will have to compete with these young people. It will be an arduous task, and their future will not be bright.
The Government should accept the new Clause. If private industry feels itself under an obligation to grant large sums of money as compensation for loss of office to some of its officers—and the Government say "Amen" to that—I cannot sec how the Government can escape giving support to this new Clause, even if the argument is used that the money will have to be found from the Exchequer in view of the amount of compensation which may have to be paid out tax-free to these people.
The Bill may not have received the publicity it should have had throughout the country. The building of the new towns was a great venture, introduced by the Labour Government. One thing, however, is certain. The people who will be affected by the implementation of the Bill are waiting anxiously to see what the final result will be. The Minister has had ample time, since we met in Committee and since the new Clause was tabled, to consider the whole matter and be ready to say "Amen" to the application which is made in the new Clause on behalf of the people who have given valuable service in the new towns. So long as they are employed by the corporations or, if the transfer should take place, by the Commission, they deserve better consideration from the Government than what the Minister promised when we were in Committee.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The Minister has a remarkable capacity for making enemies. He went out of his way to make enemies of hundreds of thousands of tenants throughout the country. Not content with that, he helped to introduce the block grant and thus made enemies among countless teachers and people in local government. The adverse reaction of his activities in that direction has yet to be encountered. Not content with that, he now makes enemies of those employees in the new towns who are about to lose their employment as a result of this new Bill. When does he intend to stop? If he goes on like this, he will make enemies of the Opposition. Then where will he be?
Some time ago, I had some correspondence with the Minister precisely on this subject. I happen to have a new town in my constituency, and a very good new town it is—no thanks to the Minister. He had nothing to do with it at its inception, and he certainly has not helped it along since he became Minister. Ever since he became Minister, I have encountered much trouble because of rising rents, because of economic difficulties confronting the development corporation, because of difficulties about amenities, and the like. I have had very little help from him. As will be shown later when we discuss some of the other items, I have been confronted with more difficulties as a result of his decisions. He will hear all about that.
In my correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman, I pointed out, quite rightly, I thought, that those employees who were about to be displaced, or who were likely to be displaced, were entitled to a measure of compensation for loss of office. There is nothing new in that. It is no new principle, as the Minister will agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred to what happens in privately owned industry when vast sums are provided as compensation for loss of office. Precisely the same principle applies in the case of nationalised industries.
I put this simple question to the Minister. Let us suppose that, when I introduced the Bills to nationalise the coal mines and to nationalise the electricity industry, as I did, I had refused to

provide for compensation to the owners who were to be displaced. What would the right hon. Gentleman have said? What a row the Conservatives would have kicked up! There would have been a real hullabaloo about it. Indeed, I had to go to arbitration to ensure that everything was fair and reasonable. What is more, there are hon. Members on the benches opposite—there are not many of them there at the moment, any more than there were in Committee—who are today receiving large sums of money in compensation as a result of the nationalisation of the mining industry. There was never a word of protest about that. If it had not been so provided, I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have had a great deal to say.
What is new about what is proposed? Nothing at all. We are asking merely for the continuation of a well-established principle. That is all. I do not think that a great deal need be said about it. It is a simple issue. Nobody questions the qualities of these employees. All we are asking is that the Minister should provide regulations so that these employees, if they ask for compensation—and that question is not settled by the Clause; there is nothing obligatory about it—may at least have their demands examined. Either they are to receive the opportunity to be provided with the facility for making a claim for compensation, as is provided in the proposed Clause, or the Minister says, "No compensation in any circumstances", which is going a bit too far.
I know that the Minister is a bit of a dictator, but he must not be too much of a dictator. I could say a lot of other things about him, but we can leave vituperation until later, if it is necessary, unless he gives way. This is not good enough. We have stood the Minister long enough. Some of us have been quite mild about it, but even mild people like myself cannot tolerate this kind of conduct too long. I shall not allow the people in my constituency, who are likely to suffer as a result of the Minister's indecision, to suffer if I can help it. They are very good people.
I know what the Minister will say. Apart from the verbiage in which he indulges, he will say, "After all, they are entitled to a pension. They are probably superannuated. They have come from


local authority service and their superannuation will continue". But there may be many who have not come from local authorities, who are not entitled to a pension and who do not come within the ambit of superannuation schemes. In that case, what will they receive if they are displaced? Nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman will say that they can claim National Assistance or can look for other jobs. It is not certain that they will be able to get other jobs, or if they find alternative employment it may not be so remunerative as their existing employment.
We are entitled to be indignant about this matter. The Minister must come off his perch and must, at any rate, be a little resilient. We are not asking for anything definite. We are merely asking for something which is permissive, namely, that regulations should be in existence so that if a claim is made it can be investigated and if it is thought by the appropriate authority that a man is entitled to compensation he shall receive something. On the other hand, if it is thought that he is not entitled to compensation he will receive nothing. That is fair enough.
I must ask the Minister to give way a little in this matter. If he does not, as T have said, he will make more enemies. My hon. Friends the Members for Widnes, Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) are quite right. What sort of sentiment will exist in the sphere of new town development? These people do not know where they are. What changes will take place in the administration of the new towns? These men will be left high and dry, in the lurch and on a limb, because the Minister has not the resilience which is essential in these matters and will not give way. I will not beg him to give way. I say that he ought to give way and I hope that that is firm enough. If he does not give way, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Albert Evans: After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to intervene, but I hoped that we should have the benefit of the views of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He dealt with this matter in Committee. There he moved an Amendment which

was very similar to the proposed Clause which we are now considering. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not here. In fact, so far not a single hon. Member opposite has said a word about the staffs of the new towns who are likely to be displaced. One would have thought that at least one or two hon. Members opposite would have displayed some interest in the fate of these officers who will become redundant when the new towns pass into the care of the Commission.
I want to say a word to the Minister on three points. I know he takes the view that when these officers were recruited they understood that their job was a temporary one. The Parliamentary Secretary made this clear in Standing Committee. He said:
It was known right from the start that development corporations were temporary bodies. In the nature of the case, the corporations could never have given guarantees to their staff of permanent employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th May, 1959; c. 589.]
I doubt whether that is a true statement of the atmosphere which prevailed when the staffs were recruited. From my own knowledge, some of the personnel went into the service of the new towns with the impression that it was a job which would last them for the rest of their working lives. I very much doubt whether the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are right in saying that the staffs took on these jobs in the belief that it would be for only a short period.
It was provided in the New Towns Act that the staffs of the new town corporations should come within the provisions of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. Section 18 of the New Towns Act makes it clear that the staffs of the new town corporations would be covered by the provisions of that Act. Therefore, these people, knowing that that was in the Act, would have been justified in concluding that, as they were covered by the Local Government Superannuation Act in their new jobs in the new towns, they were, for all practical purposes, being treated as local government officers.
From my own knowledge of certain cases, some of these officers, if not all of them, who went from the employ of local authorities into the employ of the new town corporations were under the impression that, far from going into a job of a temporary nature, they were


entering a sphere of activity which would last them possibly for the rest of their working lives. The provision in the New Towns Act to which I have referred supported them in their belief that they would be treated in the same way as local government officers. I am sure that many of them will be very cross and will suffer a sense of injustice unless the Minister inserts a provision in the Bill that will ensure that they are compensated if they lose their job or suffer a diminution in remuneration.
4.30 p.m.
My second point, which is a very serious one, was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). This concerns the dissipation of the very specialised staffs which are now employed in the various new town corporations. It is already happening. The staffs in the various new town corporations are unsettled. They realise that the Government's intentions are such that it would be better for them to leave their jobs as quickly as possible. They know that if the Minister has his way and they subsequently find themselves redundant they will not be entitled to compensation. Many of them—often the most able—are on their way out, trying to get away from the corporations as quickly as possible because of the Minister's refusal to arrange compensation for the loss of their jobs.
The Minister's obstinacy is undermining the confidence of these highly skilled and valuable staffs, and is bringing about the dissipation of this very valuable and irreplaceable type of officer. The Town and Country Planning Association had something to say about this in January. In effect, it said that it would be wholly deplorable if these valuable staffs, with their great fund of knowledge and skill, were to be dissipated. That, coming from the Town and Country Planning Association, is entitled to re-receive the Minister's attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes put the matter with some force, and I support him. We want to know what reply the Minister has to this charge. Does he understand that his action will result in the dissipation of these irreplaceable staffs? What has he to tell the Committee about it?
If the Minister can see any reason behind the arguments put forward I hope

that he will incorporate in the Bill some form of words—possibly in another place—to meet our point. I appeal to him to try to act as a good employer in this matter. Leaving aside all our arguments as to whether or not these were temporary jobs, I come to the simple plea: will the Minister act as a good employer and treat these men fairly, as a good private employer would?
It has already been said that many large private enterprise firms provide compensation if their workers are displaced. These large firms would think it immoral to toss aside servants without some regard to the service they had rendered, and without some measure of compensation for their displacement. Even small firms realise their obligation towards men who have been working for them for many years, and they would not simply throw them aside because of some rearrangement. The time has passed when even a private employer, let alone a Government Department, could pick up a man and drop him again whenever he thought fit.
Upon that simple ground I ask for fair play. The Minister should reconsider the matter and provide that these men shall not be subject merely to an ex gratia payment by the Commission, but will know that they will be properly compensated for loss of office or diminution of remuneration.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Fortunately, the new Clause has nothing to do with take-over bids or the activities of that admirable body known as the Institute of Directors. For that matter, it has nothing to do with the Local Government Act or the amount of the general grant referred to by the hon. Member; neither does it relate to the personal qualities of my right hon. Friend, although I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for his solicitude for my right hon. Friend and for the negative compliment that he paid him.
We are now discussing a Clause the purpose of which is to make statutory provision for compensation to be paid to development corporation officers, designated by the Minister, who will suffer loss or diminution of emoluments


as a result of Orders made under Clause 6. We are discussing directly the question of compensation, and not of pensions, although I agree that the two things impinge upon each other. I may be a little optimistic, but I hope to be able to satisfy the Committee that what my right hon. Friend has had in mind, and what he has already embarked upon, is right, and that he is acting fairly towards those persons who may be displaced.
I want to make it clear that, generally speaking, my right hon. Friend does not expect many people from the new towns to find themselves made redundant as a result of the ending of the activities of the various corporations. As the rate of development declines from town to town we know that some members of the staffs will begin to cast about for other suitable employment. Many members will be taken on by the Commission itself; indeed it is almost inevitable that certain grades of staff, such as rent collectors, will be taken on more or less automatically and will function in the localities where they are working today.
Some hon. Members opposite have given the impression that the Government have done little or nothing to meet the claims made by the new town staffs. That is not true. A great deal has been done to safeguard their superannuation rights. Most of the men who came to serve on the corporations from the sphere of local government will have the right to an immediate pension, if they are unable to find reasonable alternative work within twelve months, and are within ten years of pensionable age.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman said that we were not dealing with pensions.

Mr. Bevins: I said that the two things impinged one upon the other.
If, on the other hand, a man is not within ten years of pensionable age, he will be entitled to have his pension rights frozen.
These provisions are quite novel in the sphere of local government and were designed by my right hon. Friend to deal with a special case. I ought also to mention that arrangements have been made to help people to find work in local government, through the agencies of the

development corporations and the Whitley Council, which are working together and doing all they can to help. Even so, as my right hon. Friend conceded during the earlier stages of the Bill, there will be a limited number of hard cases. He has already made it clear that he intends to ask the development corporations to pick out the hard core of individuals who are likely to suffer, and has said that if it seemed fair and reasonable to make some provision for them over and above the pension provision made by the superannuation regulations which I have sketchily referred to already, he would give an undertaking that help would be given if it were needed.
In pursuance of that undertaking the chairmen of the corporations have been asked to undertake that investigation. In due course the measures to deal with hard cases will be discussed, through the new towns Whitley Council machinery.
The question posed by the new Clause is whether the Government, in dealing with the matter in this way, are acting correctly, or whether it would be right to give these employees a statutory right to compensation on the basis of formal legal regulations. This, I entirely agree, is a serious argument and one to which the Committee is right to devote its mind. My right hon. Friend has always argued that it would be inappropriate to give a statutory right to compensation for loss of office on the ground that all these jobs with the new town corporations were necessarily for a limited period. I shall not rest my case on that simple assertion. I want to deal with some of the arguments which have come from hon. Members opposite. Putting it in the simplest form, my right hon. Friend has based his case on the ground that all the jobs within the new towns were necessarily for a limited period and that those jobs were bound to come to an end when the development came to an end.
A good deal has been said this afternoon about precedents of compensation for loss of office. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise that all the precedents concerning staff or employed persons refer to staff employed by permanent bodies where the staff had every reason to suppose that the employing


body and their jobs would be of a permanent character.
I cannot accept the alleged analogy put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes regarding cases of amalgamations of local government authorities deriving from the Local Government Act. I do not think that that is a parallel case at all. The truth of the matter is that development corporations were known from the start to be temporary bodies. So far as I know, no hon. Member has ever suggested that employees of the corporations were ever given any kind of assurance that their jobs were permanent or that if they came to an end they would be compensated. If that has ever been said by any member of the Government, I am perfectly willing to give way, but I think that what I have said is a statement of fact.

Mr. Slater: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of a case where a delegated authority has had its powers taken over by another authority, with the result that the officers from the previous authority lost their jobs and were not paid compensation? For example, a district surveyor attached to a district authority would receive compensation for loss of office when the highways were taken over by the county authority. What is the difference between the proposals in this Clause and that position?

Mr. Bevins: I think that the difference is perfectly clear. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers there was a very natural expectation of permanency of employment whereas, so far as I know, no one has ever suggested that the employees of the corporations were ever given any kind of assurance that their jobs were permanent or that if they came to an end the employees would be compensated.
In the nature of the case, no one could ever have said that at any time, particularly as the New Towns Act, 1946, itself provided for the dissolution of the development corporations. The truth is that this problem—let us be quite open about this—would still have been with the Government and with Parliament if the new towns had been transferred to the local authorities, because the work of substantial development would have finished in just the same way and redundancy would have flowed from that.
To turn to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes, which is an argument which merits serious consideration, he said what, I think, is felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that although the majority of these men, perhaps all of them, must have realised that there could have been no permanency of service with a single development corporation, nevertheless, if the new towns venture as a whole proved successful, there would be some measure of permanency for them in, as it were, the world of new towns. I am perfectly willing to say that there may be something in that argument, but I do not think that it ought to be taken too far. Even in that case, there would have been no guarantee that the staff which left a moribund or dying corporation would have found jobs with one which was starting from scratch. I will return to that particular point in more detail in a moment.
4.45 p.m.
What is the problem? As I see it, the problem is mainly concerned with the men serving the development corporations who are now in their fifties and who may not find it easy to get suitable alternative work. Even if we were building another 10 or 20 new towns, there is no assurance that men in this age group would readily be taken on by the new development corporations. Of course, they might be, or they might not be—no one knows. I think, however, that one is bound to admit that it would be a very open question.
My right hon. Friend is saying this to the Committee. If one of these men is over, shall we say, 55 years of age, then he can claim a pension if he cannot get suitable work within twelve months. If he is younger than 55 he is entitled, as a general rule, to a frozen pension. I should have thought that generally speaking—there may be exceptions—that most people younger than 55 would have no great difficulty in getting alternative work. I agree, and my right hon. Friend agrees, that there may be difficult cases in both of those categories—men over 55 and men who are below that age. When the examination which the chairmen of the new towns and my right hon. Friend are carrying out has been completed, these cases will be discussed through the new towns Whitley Council


machinery. I think that that is a reasonable proposal.
To return to the new Clause, I should say this to help the Committee. As I read it, the Clause as drafted would cover only the hard case which arose among men who remained with the development corporation until the actual transfer order was made. It would not cover the cases which arose before the transfer order. As the Committee well knows, staff who expect to be redundant, or some of them, will be seeking employment over a longish period, perhaps a matter of months or of years before the actual date of the transfer order.
It is only fair to say to the Committee that the merit of my right hon. Friend's scheme is that because of its flexibility it will enable the Government to pick out the hard cases and deal with them as they arise, however they arise, and whenever they arise. For all those reasons, I feel that the approach of my right hon. Friend to this admittedly difficult question is a fair approach. We are seeking to do the right thing by men who may suffer loss of office.

Mr. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman say that he places the responsibility on the chairman of the corporation to go into the cases of people who are likely to be redundant and, after he receives it, he passes that report on to the Whitley Council? Where in the world have we got to?

Mr. Bevins: I did not say that. I said that my right hon. Friend had invited chairmen of corporations to examine potential hard cases and, having done so, to report the result to my right hon. Friend. Naturally, my right hon. Friend would look at these cases with sympathy and in detail and he would then make a reference for discussion to the Whitley Council.

Mr. Gibson: Why not put it in the Bill?

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Yesterday, we were talking about "golden handshakes". The speech which we have just heard from the parliamentary Secretary makes me think that what the Government propose to do with these people is to wave them a rather desultory "goodbye" with a cold

and clammy hand which they have probably dipped in a frozen pension. There is no "golden handshake" about this. The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech which, for most of the time, related to an Amendment which was moved in Committee and was hardly related at all to the new Clause.
What we sought to do in Committee, and I must mention it to explain the new Clause, was to introduce the provision in Section 50 of the Local Government Act, 1958, which gives employees of a local authority compensation for loss of office or worsening of conditions on the amalgamation or disappearance of a local authority. I should have thought that the ground for that was by now well-established, namely, that when the Government policy results in a man losing his job through no fault of his own he is usually compensated; and that is not the same question as to whether or not he is given a pension. The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly right in saying that it was not the same question, and I shall not talk about pensions but about what is in the new Clause.
When we put forward that proposal in Committee we had very much the answer which has been-given to us today—that most of these people will find employment somewhere or other. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, some of them would have found a job anyhow if the corporations had been wound up and the new towns had been taken over. These are only the hard core, as he said, and a wonderfully flexible arrangement is to be made about the hard core. They are to be left entirely to the good will of the Minister.
I would not have regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a very flexible type, though we can all have our own opinion about that. The flexible arrangement is that the Minister is to say, "I will give you what I choose". How wonderfully flexible from the point of view of the giver, but from the point of view of the receiver it is rather unsatisfactory. The receiver would prefer to have some right, even to having Ministerial charity.
I want to say one or two things to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister on the question of compensation and the loss of jobs. It is perfectly true that jobs


in the new towns were not to be permanent jobs. I accept the phrase used by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that these were jobs for an indefinite period. The man who chose to go into a new town was taking a certain risk, but the risk was the risk as matters then stood.
As the Parliamentary Secretary himself said, people were talking about more new towns. The intention of everybody, including, as far as I know, at that period, the Conservative Party—for it said nothing different—was that there should be more new towns. A man who went into new town employment was entitled to take that into consideration. He was entitled to take into consideration also that what he was going in for was a job which would last for some considerable time. He did not know exactly how long. Nobody knew.
Now, by an act of the Government, as a matter of policy, there are to be no more new towns, and the man who went into this employment for an indefinite period is asked to accept a change in the conditions which he contemplated when he went into a new town. That is logically exactly the same, though in a different context, as the case of the man employed by a local authority which disappears through Government action.
In this case the conditions which the man had to contemplate and form a judgment upon are altered for the worst by Government policy. Once we have that position we must realise that we are being unfair to people if we do not do something about it. It is not enough to say that there are not many of these people or that, "I am a nice, kind Minister and I will always give them a good gratuity at the end or find them another job or use this or that machinery."
We are proposing to leave to the Treasury, as the Local Government Act itself does, the regulations determining compensation, and we are further proposing to leave it to the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor in office, to decide who among these people shall be designated and, therefore, entitled to receive the benefits of the Clause. It may be asked, "What is the use of that to any of them?"
The answer is that the Minister can be called to account in the House of

Commons as to whom he does or does not designate. He can be asked questions about it. The real, substantial question raised by the Clause is whether the treatment of these people is to be left to the autocratic bureaucracy of the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, or whether he or his successor is to be answerable to the House about what is done in relation to these people. That is the effect of the Clause.
It may be said that there is little in that, but, in fact, there is a great deal. Apart from the power of individual Members to speak up on behalf of a constituent who may be affected by this change, the people affected by the change themselves know that the Minister cannot do something at his own sweet will. He must do something that will stand up to Parliamentary criticism and examination. We have gone a long way to meet any possible objections that the Government might make.
I concede at once to the Government that it is true that the majority of these people will find other jobs. The gardener employed by a development corporation is an officer for the purposes of the Clause, but he is likely, and always was likely, to go on being employed by the owner of the piece of land in question. There will be some people, however, who will be very hard-hit indeed. These are the older people, and many of them are people with a particular skill.
It is not for us to speculate whether they will or will not get a job with somebody else, or what their chances are and what can be done to help them. We are treating these people differently from what they expected at the time. The Committee is doing that as a matter of Government policy and we are as bound to give those people some right to compensation, and a right we can supervise, as we were bound, in different circumstances, to give that right to the people who lose jobs under the Local Government Act. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman refuses this proposed Clause.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why he says that the Government are giving these people less than they were led to


expect? His Government, in the 1946 Act, made no provision for them in Section 15, which deals with the winding-up of the corporations.

Mr. Mitchison: We had not reached this stage then, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act I think he will find that the Order which could have been made under that Section could have made this provision. However, I agree this much with him, that we were then ten or fifteen years from the period of the Order that could have been made under Section 15, and it may have been that some legislation would have had to be introduced.
I am not concerned with that; I am concerned with the substance of the matter today, and the right hon. Gentleman knows well that he is worsening the prospects of these people by refusing to designate any more new towns. These skilled people, particularly the older ones, stood much of their best chance of re-employment in a newly designated town. It does not matter whether I am right in my assessment. They stood at least a better chance of employment, and they have been deprived of that right, such as it was. They have been deprived of that factor, which influenced their judgment at the time, by a piece of Government policy.
It is quite wrong that a piece of Government policy should be allowed to deprive people of something of that kind, of that prospect, of that chance, however high or low we value it. And it is for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government themselves to decide, in the light of everything, what it is worth; that is to say, what the amount of the compensation is to be—that will be in the regulations—and to whom it will be applied; in other words, the designated people. They could not ask for more. The only difference between what the Government propose to do and what we propose to do is this. We say that there ought to be a right in the House of Commons to see that the Minister designates the right people and to allow the grievances of people who lose their jobs, or have their employment worsened, to be raised in the form of Questions or Motions or other Parliamentary procedure.
That is the right which this autocratic Government are denying. Their answer

is, "It is all right. We are nice, kind people. We have the most flexible minds. We will give them just as much coal and blankets as we think is good for them". That is the question raised in this proposed Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friends will join with me in dividing in favour of it.

Mr. Frederick Gough: Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham) rose—

Mr. Shinwell: Sir Gordon, is the Minister not going to reply to the debate? Is he going to remain silent and leave it to his Parliamentary Secretary, who made such a contradictory speech?

Mr. H. Brooke: If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to say something, I certainly will do so.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman begins, Sir Gordon, the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) was about to ask me a question, and since we are in Committee, perhaps he can be allowed to do so.

Mr. Gough: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for protecting me against two right hon. Members. I wanted to ask him a simple question. It occurred to me that what he was saying about my right hon. Friend was that the action he is taking precludes back benchers from raising Questions in the House of Commons if any of our constituents are dismissed and we think they have not received adequate compensation. Surely that cannot be correct.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not see where the right hon. Gentleman's Ministerial responsibility arises. As I see it, there is no obligation in the terms of the Bill to pay any compensation to these people. This proposed Clause, however, imposes an obligation. Supposing the Minister walks out of here and takes a cab and overpays or underpays the driver, it does not matter that in so doing he is distributing money, but there is no Ministerial responsibility on which to found a question. Similarly, I see no Ministerial responsibility written into the Bill, except by this proposed Clause or something like it.

Mr. H. Brooke: I said upstairs in Standing Committee on this subject:
If in the particular circumstances it seems fair and reasonable to make provision over and above the financial provision which is made by


the special Regulations, I can give an undertaking that through new town funds, whether from the development corporations or from the Commission, help will be given if it is needed"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 605.]
That is an undertaking I have given to Parliament and I am responsible in the House of Commons for the actions both of development corporations and of the new Commission when it is set up.
To come to the principal issue, the Clause proposed by the Opposition involves accepting a statutory responsibility for compensating somebody whose job has come to an end, conceal it as they may.

Mr. Gibson: Why not?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asks, why not? He has been a member of the London County Council. Neither the L.C.C. nor any other local authority, nor any of the local authority associations, have ever contemplated a system of local government whereby when a man is taken on for a job for a limited period, he should receive compensation when it is finished.

Mr. Gibson: That is not the point.

Mr. Brooke: That is precisely the point. That is the difficulty about the proposed Clauses. They seek to extend to quite a new field what Parliament has always provided for when Parliament, by its own action, has brought somebody's work to an end.
Each of these individuals was taken on to do a specific job. They all know that they are working for the Stevenage Corporation, or the Harlow Corporation, or the Crawley Corporation. They are not in new town service generally. They knew from the beginning that the new town they were helping to build would not continue indefinitely or cover the whole of England and Wales. It had to come to an end. Nor do I believe for one moment that people in new town service have at any time assumed that just at the moment when their part in building their own new town would finish there would be some other new town starting up, where they would have a prescriptive right to be employed. That simply is not the case.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has advised the Committee, and quite rightly, that we should not

make this extension, and that Parliament should not endorse the view that, when a man is doing a certain piece of work which has a limited duration, he is entitled to compensation for loss of office when that work ends. In addition to that, the proposed Clause fails largely in its object because, as drafted, it would appear to me only to offer any possible help to a man who is actually in the employment of a development corporation at the time when it is wound up; whereas common sense will show that the work will have been running down and that the majority of the people affected are likely to have finished their jobs before the moment of hand over. In other words, it is not the Order that winds up the development corporation which brings the job to an end; it is the completion of the job, and that is not a case for compensation for loss of office.

Mr. Mitchison: May I say a word in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said? That is the deliberate advantage of the Clause, that it will prevent people—good people very often—from leaving, as they are now leaving, the service of development corporations, because they know that if they stay on there they have, at any rate, some right at the end of the day. And it is right that the compensation should in this case be given, as it is, for instance, under the Local Government Act, at the end of the time and not in the middle of it.

Mr. Shinwell: I must say to the Committee that I regard the right hon. Gentleman's reply as most unsatisfactory, and I think it ought to be placed on record, as undoubtedly it will be, as I am about to say—it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—that I hope the members of the National Association of Local Government Officers throughout the country will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I imagine that they would regard it as unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friends and I do. I hope that the Committee will take note of the arguments that have been presented.
There are two arguments. One is that when these employees of the development corporations were first employed, they anticipated that their employment would come to an end in the course of a few years. So far as I know, they were not so informed. They may have anticipated that their employment would be


terminated after a few years when the development corporations came to an end, but they were certainly not so informed because, obviously, had they been it is very doubtful whether, at any rate, all of them would have accepted employment. That is the principal argument that has been adduced in opposition to the proposed new Clause.
I hope that the Committee will have noted what the Parliamentary Secretary said. In the course of his speech, the hon. Gentleman asserted that, at any rate, very few men are likely to suffer. He said that very few will become redundant.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins indicated assent.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman agrees. That is what he said. There are two replies to that. Ore is that if, after all, very few men are likely to suffer, then the amount of compensation to be paid is likely to be negligible.

Mr. H. Brooke: it is not a question of amount, but a question of principle.

Mr. Shinwell: We know that the Government are so activited by high moral principle that we are really a little dubious about it. We are certainly not going to elevate a principle into a position where hard cases are going to be left to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, or of any Tory successor if ever there is one.
I repeat that the Parliamentary Secretary said—there is no escaping this—that very few cases would occur. If very few cases would occur, why boggle at this proposition? On the other hand, the assumption is that when these men were employed by these development corporations the expectation was that they were going to be employed for a very long time and that there was going to be very little redundancy. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
Let us take it a step further and deal with the other argument adduced. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there may be a hard core of hard cases. What is to happen to them? The Parliamentary Secretary referred to them in a detailed fashion. Men of 50 years of age, perhaps 55 years of age, may be regarded as redundant. They will be dismissed. They may seek alternative

employment, but none may be available. They will be the hard cases, so they apply, not to the Minister in the first instance but to the chairman of the Commission, whoever he may be.
The chairman of the Commission may in his discretion—not as a right, a duty or a responsibility, but in his discretion—refer the matter to the Whitley Council associated with the development corporation. The Whitley Council will go into the matter, conduct its investigations and will no doubt inquire whether the person concerned has an income or any capital available. It will apply the means test. The Whitley Council will, first of all, inquire whether the man has a pension or not. If there is a pension, the Council may think it adequate. Therefore, it is no longer a hard case.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that, of course, Questions can be asked in the House. He has given an undertaking. I do not propose to enter into the matter of whether the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be in his present office in the course of the next few years. It matters not. But in spite of the undertaking, when Questions are put to the Minister of Housing and Local Government about such hard cases, about how they are dealt with by the Commission or by the Whitley Council, it is first a question of whether we shall get them beyond the Table. We have ample experience of that. We know the obstacles and snags that lie in the path. But supposing that we do get them beyond the Table and that the Minister is questioned, we know the kind of Answers that we shall receive.
5.15 p.m.
I had an answer the other day from the Secretary of State for War. This is a digression, but it has a bearing on the subject, and a very important one, too, and the House is not going to forget it. I asked a Question about a holder of the Victoria Cross, an ex-officer who in the First World War was responsible for an act of gallantry. He and his wife are now in receipt of an old-age pension of £4 5s. and the man has a disability pension of 25s. a week, which brings the total income to a little more than £5. The man applied for an annuity of £75 under the Regulations and was denied it. What did the Minister


say? He said, "I stand by the Regulations." There was a hard case if ever there was one. But the Minister stands by the Regulations, and that is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government would say if he were interrogated by hon. Members on this side or even on the benches opposite.
This matter must be regarded either as a right or the Minister should be quite honest about it and say that these people will be displaced in the ordinary course of business when their activities have come to an end, when the development corporations have been telescoped with the local authorities or when the new Commission takes over, that they cannot expect any more than the pensions to which they are entitled and that not all of them will be entitled to a pension.
I have received no reply to a point which I put in a speech some time ago, when I asked how those persons come in who were employed by the development corporations but who were not transferred from the local authority and therefore did not come within the ambit of superannuation and were thus not entitled to a pension. Are these the hard cases?

Mr. Gibson: This is a revival of charity.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is right. This is a revival of the charity society with the Minister of Housing and Local Government as director-general in the chair. God help people who come asking for assistance.
This is not good enough. Hon. Members may think that I am not entitled to be indignant about the matter, but I am. These are acts of injustice. We are not concerned with our high faluting debates but with social justice for our people. When the matter was first pointed out to me I did not understand it because I am not acquainted with local government affairs. I put it up to the Minister and I am astonished at the reply. I have been waiting months for an opportunity of saying what I think ought to be said in this Committee—not that my hon. Friends are incapable of saying it.

Mr. Gough: I fully appreciate the right hon Gentleman's indignation and

nobody in the Committee is better able than he in expressing it. But as the right hon. Gentleman has shown such great indignation, could he explain why it was that the Government of which he was a member did not enshrine this very thing in the first Act that they passed?

Mr. Shinwell: This question has been put to us on this side so often that I think the time has come for someone who can speak with authority to offer a reply. We have been asked questions about nationalisation, unemployment, groundnuts and all the rest, and perhaps the time has come for a reply—I hope not a discussion—to be given bearing on the subject.
The first answer which I would venture to give is this. When the new towns were first invented it was not a Labour Government that were in power. The Committee will see that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) is not as well acquainted with this subject as I am. I happen to have been a Member of the House at the time. Not very many hon. Members now present were Members at that time. There are a few of us, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and a few other of my hon. Friends who are present in the Chamber. Very few hon. Members opposite who are present this afternoon were then Members. I see the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) sitting on the benches opposite. He then represented Wood Green and was a very inactive Member. I must say that the hon. Gentleman has persisted in his inactivity throughout the years.
I remember that during the war when we were discussing reconstruction—hon. Members may be surprised to know that we actually discussed reconstruction in the latter years of the war—the matter of the new towns was mooted. It was left to a Labour Government to develop the idea. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was then a Member of this House and responsible, may have omitted to mention the matter of a right of gratuity or compensation, in addition to pension, for these people when the development corporations were terminated. It may be that that was a fatal blunder on his part. He certainly ought to have done it. But that is by


no means the kind of excuse which should be offered by a Tory Government for failing to accept their responsibilities.
There is another reason, a more valid reason, which has nothing to do with blundering or misunderstanding. It was believed by the Labour Government—I am within the recollection of some hon. Members present in the Chamber—that new towns would go on being built for a long time; that we should not be content only with Harlow, Crawley, Peterlee. Hemel Hempstead and the rest of them, but that we should have new towns scattered up and down the country—a kind of national spring-cleaning. Of course, that idea would never occur to the Tories. But that is what we had in mind—beautifying the country. And is it not necessary, when we think of the squalor which exists in Lancashire, Durham, London and elsewhere, and in Scotland? We thought it was necessary, and we thought that the building of new towns was going on.
It is this Government who have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived to put an end to the building of new towns. And so, having acted in this arbitrary fashion, having decided that the building of new towns should come to an end, that we have sufficient of them, there is an even graver and greater responsibility on the shoulders of the present Government to provide compensation for employees who are regarded as redundant. Let them stand up to those arguments if they can and not run away with this pettifogging, pitiable excuse about hard cases.
I would not trust them to deal with hard cases. I do not mean by that that the Minister is not, on the whole, a decent fellow. I say what I have said before, that sometimes even decent people ought to be ashamed of themselves. I will tell the Committee what is wrong with the right hon. Gentleman. He has a hard core, that is what is the matter with him. It is a kind of malady, a hard core, a kind of cankerous growth. There is no resilience about the right hon. Gentleman, there is almost no humanity about him. He only wants to deal with hard cases. We have finished with all that stuff. It is Victorian, it is Edwardian, it is Georgian—this hard case stuff. Now we want rights and responsibilities.
If the right hon. Gentleman will not concede our point, all the worse for him. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the members of the National Association of Local Government Officers will take note of this and will deal with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends at the critical moment.

Mr. Ede: The point between the two sides of the Committee was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that what we are asking for ought to be made a statutory duty for the Minister. Then, if we think that appropriate justice, or even mercy, is not being shown to one of these persons, who may be dismissed with no immediate hope of further employment, we can get a Question or a Motion past the Table and deal with the matter.
We do not want to find ourselves in the position that when we try to do that we are told that the Minister has no statutory duty to deal with it. From his speech in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, I understood that that was just what the Minister was determined not to concede. He does not intend to be put under a statutory duty to handle these things. But he will consider them in what was supposed to be the traditional attitude of the squire and the parson towards the rather decrepit workman who had served them all his life and at the end was merely an object for their charity, if they proposed to exercise it.
What statutory authority will the right hon. Gentleman have to do the kind of things which he has offered to do? He says that he will give an undertaking regarding a case of this kind if it arises in the peculiar way in which it may come about, which is that first of all the person concerned is represented by the chairman of the development corporation as one whose case is a hard case. If the wretched fellow cannot convince the chairman of the corporation of that fact, apparently nothing happens. But, on the assumption that the chairman has been persuaded that it is a hard case, the matter will go to the Whitley Council. What power has the council to vary the terms of the superannuation legislation? If this


person is to be the recipient of payments out of superannuation funds—

Mr. H. Brooke: Mr. H. Brooke indicated dissent.

Mr. Ede: I do not think such a person would have much chance of getting that, and I am glad to see that the Minister recognises it. This will not be part of the statutory contribution.
Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about some development council fund—I think that is what he called it—and said he would get some money from that fund. Are there no statutory requirements regarding the way money is to be paid out of such a fund? Unless the Treasury turns a blind eye when dealing with the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought it would insist on definite statutory limitations on any such fund, and the money which might be paid out to a person who finds himself in this plight.
5.30 p.m.
The Minister says that he will find the money from somewhere to pay these men something or other. Is it to be in the form of superannuation? Is it to be a once and for all lump sum payment, or is it to be some kind of annuity not at present known to the law? Where does the Minister propose to get the money from? Has the Statute that will enable him to do it been passed, or is it hidden in some remote and rather obscure Clause of the Bill we are now considering? Finally, what sum will be paid?
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing that any of us wishes to do—and I am sure he would be the last person who would wish to do it-is to make some statement this afternoon similar to the one that the right hon. Gentleman has made and, when the time comes to operate it, find that there may be difficulties in finding the money. I admit that I have not been a very close student of the Bill, but I cannot find any power in the Bill to enable the Minister to make such a payment.
The Minister says that the Clause deals only with people in the employment of the development corporations from the day that the development corporations cease to act. If that is a hindrance. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering would be willing to have consultations

with the Minister to amend the new Clause and include the people who may be regarded as losing their employment because of the impending dissolution of the development corporations.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to tell us where he will find the power to do what he has said he would wish to do if any person's name were brought to his attention as being a person coming within the ambit of the descriptions he has given us this afternoon.

Mr. Gibson: The cold-blooded way in which the Minister has replied to this debate is unacceptable to anyone with any human feelings. We want it established as a right that men who are displaced and lose their jobs will be considered for compensation. The Minister, with a background which indicates his attitude to life, said in Committee, and he must not be surprised that some of us are very annoyed about it:
The sort of case I have in mind is where, during the immediate twelve months period afterwards before he can qualify for pension, he is trying to find another job, but nevertheless fails to obtain one and is in financial difficulties. Money out of new town funds will be available in a case of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959: c. 606.]
That is charity. That is not treating men as men. That is not giving them any rights in the matter. In any case, it is doubtful whether there is any power under this or any other Bill to use the funds of new town corporations in that way. As the law stands the Minister cannot do it, and unless additional powers are given to him I do not see how he can.
Even if he could, it is not good enough. I ask the Committee to adopt the principle which this House has adopted many times, that wherever a man or a woman loses his or her job because of a deliberate change of Government policy—and that is the position here—he or she has the right to compensation.
The Minister's analogy was false. He said that I was a member of the London County Council with him, and that the London County Council would not compensate people it sacked because the job died out. If somebody lost his job because the London County Council amalgamated two departments he would be compensated. That has been done on more than one occasion, and it was done


when the tramways were taken over by the London Transport Board. All we are asking is that these new town corporation employees who will be amalgamated into a nationalised body should be given the same rights of compensation, and that the right to compensation should be written into the law so that we do not have to depend on the charitable instincts of the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister.

Mr. H. Brooke: They are not to be amalgamated into a nationalised body. The new Commission is quite distinct. The hon. Gentleman even now does not understand the situation. There is no question of people losing their jobs through some Government action. Their jobs will end because the work for which they were taken on will end. I have said before, and I say again, that no local authority undertakes to compensate for loss of office somebody whom it has taken on for a job of limited duration. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has Parliament ever accepted that principle, and I am advising Parliament not to accept that principle today.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) first thought that this money would come out of superannuation funds. He was not a member—

Mr. Ede: I did not think anything at all. I asked the question.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned superannuation funds. He was not a member of the Committee upstairs, so he was not in a position to know that I had said that the money would come out of new town funds. The money will come out of the general fund which the development corporations administer. There is no reason why payments of this kind should not be made, and statutory authority is not required. I would not have made the statement I did to the Committee upstairs without having first consulted the Treasury and satisfied myself on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) complained that when he put a Question to one of my right hon. Friend's the other day my right hon. Friend took his stand in what the right hon. Gentleman described as "an inhuman way on the letter of the regulation". That is what the Clause is

seeking to do. It is seeking to bind the treatment of these cases by regulations. As I explained to the Committee earlier, the Clause would not enable assistance to be given to the whole class of people who may qualify for consideration. That is another reason why we believe that it is better to deal with these cases, if they arise, on an ad hoc basis rather than by any system of rigid regulation. I made it clear in Committee upstairs, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear here too, that there would be discussions on the National Whitley Council about the manner in which such cases should be handled if any such cases emerged as a result of the investigation I have put in hand.

Mr. MacColl: Would the Minister help further about the general powers of the corporations to make payments? It has occurred to me that the powers of the corporations are to develop new towns. This is not a question of developing a new town, but of not developing one. They will, therefore, be making payments to people when they have not finished the job. What is the statutory authority to make payments to staff as compensation arising out of the general powers to develop? They can employ staff to develop new towns. That is within their power, but to pay staff for not developing a new town might be outside their power. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would clear up that point.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will find that it is not beyond the powers of the development corporations to make ex gratia payments where there is a case for them in the interests of the new towns themselves. The people about whom we are talking are people who ex hypothesi have given good service to the new towns. I am advised that it would not be ultra vires for an ex gratia payment to be made out of development corporation funds in a case of this kind.

Mr. Mitchison: The Minister said that he would make the payments or direct the corporation to make them. Has he any power to do that? He cannot pay the money himself. Has he any power under which he can direct a corporation to make given payments to a given person?

Mr. Brooke: I have such powers, but I was not contemplating that this would be done in that way. I am certain that if a case of this kind comes to light the development corporation itself will wish to act.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Brooke: Hon. Members will be able to ask me Questions because I regard myself as responsible for what is done by the development corporations, beyond those matters on which I am specifically giving them directions.

Mr. A. Evans: We are dealing with public money over which Parliament should have close control. In what part of the Act is power given to the corporations to make ex gratia payments to members of their staff who become redundant? The corporations derive their powers from the New Towns Act, and that Act contains no Section giving them power to pay public money to redundant employees.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that in the Bill there is provision to provide either pensions or gratuities to retiring members of the Commission? Does not that exclude any possibility of any other use of the fund?

Mr. Evans: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. The Bill gives the Commission power to pay such gratuities. We are discussing the corporations, and the Minister says that they have power to make payment for loss of office. He has put that express power in the Bill for the Commission, and presumably the New Towns Act should authorise the corporations to make such payments. We are entitled to know under what power the Minister considers that the corporations will act.

Mr. Brooke: I invite the hon. Member's attention to Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act which empowers the development corporations
to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto;
That covers the matter.

Mr. Evans: When an Act of Parliament authorises the payment of public money it usually deals with the matter explicitly. Does not the Minister think

the interpretation which he has given to those words is rather dangerous?

Mr. Shinwell: This is a very important issue. The Minister has directed attention to Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act and is relying on that Act.

Mr. Brooke: I was quoting from Section 2 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: In referring to the provisions of that Act the Minister said that the money could be paid for the purposes of development of the new town or any incidental purposes. What are these incidental purposes? Is there any instance of this provision having been used since 1946? Were these words intended to be construed to enable any of the development corporations to make ex gratia payments to redundant employees? Unless the Minister can answer that in the affirmative, he is on very weak ground.
I direct attention to the First Schedule to the Bill, which is extremely important and which expressly deals with the question of gratuities to retiring officials. If there is an express provision in the Act to enable the Commission to provide gratuities for retiring officials, who retire because of redundancy or age, or any other cause, does it not exclude the payment of officials out of some miscellaneous fund to which the Minister has referred? What is that fund? Is it a separate fund to which the Minister makes a contribution? We know of no such fund. Unless the Minister can explain why there is this express provision in the First Schedule for gratuities in certain cases, with the apparent exclusion of any other kind of payment, the undertaking which he has given has no value at all.

Mr. Brooke: I must try to convince the right hon. Gentleman that I am not speaking lightly or at large. I cannot say what the Labour Government meant by these words when they put them into the Act. I have to take the Act as it stands and to look at it in the light of all the circumstances. The Act does not read as the right hon. Member suggested. It reads:
generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto;


The right hon. Gentleman said that that would not cover ex gratia payments. In fact, since the Act has been on the Statute Book a number of ex gratia payments have been made, for example to the widows of deceased members of the staffs of the new towns. They have been covered by those words. The accounts have been audited and presented to Parliament and the accounts of the development corporations, as of the Commission, will continue to be presented to Parliament. Parliamentary control will be assured. The Government propose nothing which is not provided for by existing powers.

Mr. Ede: Since a certain famous journey to Damascus there has never been such an example of the sudden seeing of the light. Less than half-an-hour ago we were twitted for not having made

any provision for this in the 1946 Act. Now we are told that the Act was so generously worded that we can do all this and apparently anything else that the Minister would wish to do in the way of granting gratuities. What a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us this when he twitted us for not having made provision for it in the 1946 Act.

Mr. Brooke: Following what the right hon. Member has said, I assume that the Opposition will withdraw the new Clause because the provision is already made.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 234.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Ainsley, J. W.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
MacColl, J. E.


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric
McInnes, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, D. M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baird, J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Balfour, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benson, Sir George
Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy


Beswick, Frank
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie
Messer, Sir F.


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Bowles, F. G
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Boyd, T. C.
Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Healey, Denis
Mort, D. L.


Brockway, A. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moss, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, F. W.


Burke, W. A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Orbach, M.


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, W. J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cliffe, Michael
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkin, B. T.


Clunie, J.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pentland, N.


Cronin, J. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John


Diamond, John
King, Dr. H. M.
Redhead, E. C.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lawson, G. M.
Reid, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Ledger, R. J.
Reynolds, G. W.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Edwards, Rt, Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.




Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swingler, S. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Skeffington, A. M.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Symonds, J. B.
Wigg, George


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, Frederick


Sorensen, R. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, David (Neath)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sparks, J. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Spriggs, Leslie
Thornton, E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Steele, T.
Timmons, J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stonehouse, John
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Stones, W. (Consett)
Watkins, T. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Weitzman, D.



Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, c.
Leburn, W. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Forrest, G.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gibson-Watt, D.
Loveys, Walter H.


Atkins, H. E.
Glover, D.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, S. J.


Barber, Anthony
Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Batsford. Brian
Graham, Sir Fergus
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Green, A.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bevins. J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maddan, Martin


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bingham, R. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Mathew, R.


Body, R. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, R. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brewis, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hay, John
Neave, Airey


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholls, Harmar


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Burden, F. F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. Chr'ch)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan


Campbell, Sir David
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Carr, Robert
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooke, Robert
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Corfield, F. V.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Horobin, Sir Ian
Peel, W. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Howard, John (Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crowder, Petre (Buislip—Northwood)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.)
Pott, H. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Price, David (Eastleigh)


de Ferranti, Basil
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Renton, D. L. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duthie, Sir William
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robertson, Sir David


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Erroll, F. J.
Kirk, P. M.
Russell, R. S.


Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, R. C.







Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Speir, R. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Webbe, Sir H.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Webster, David


Stevens, Geoffrey
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wood, Hon. R.


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vickers, Miss Joan
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.



Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Teeling, W.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORI- TIES TO DO THE WORK AT REQUEST OF COMMISSION.)

(1) The council of a county or county district in which a new town or part of one is situated may, at the request of the Commission and for such consideration and on such other terms and conditions as may be agreed between the council and the Commission, do for the Commission any building or other work on land (including land outside the county or county district), being work undertaken for the purposes of the Commission's functions in relation to the new town, or any work preliminary to or connected with any such work on land as aforesaid, or allow the Commission to have for the purpose of any such work as aforesaid the services of officers or servants of the council or the use of premises or equipment of the council.

(2) This section shall apply in relation to a joint board discharging functions of any such council as aforesaid as it applies in relation to the council.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope that this new Clause will not give rise to as great a strength of feeling as the last one. Its object is a fairly simple one. There are precedents for it, and I hope that it may be regarded as universally acceptable.
Occasions may arise after the new Commission has been set up when it would be a practical way of doing things for the Commission to borrow staff from a local authority rather than provide it itself for a short time. I am advised that under the law as it stands there would be no power for the local authority to assist the Commission in that way even though it seemed sensible to the Commission and the local authority that staff should be lent or that the local authority should in other ways give assistance and even though there was complete agreement

between the local authority and the Commission about the terms of the transaction.
The sole purpose of the new Clause is to make sure that the local authority which might be either a county district council or a county council, should have power to assist the Commission if it seemed good both to the Commission and to the local authority that an arrangement of that sort should be made. I will willingly explain the Clause at greater length if it is desired, but I hope that the House may feel that this would be a sensible arrangement to enact.

Mr. Mitchison: The purpose of the Clause seems to be both excellent and practical, and if the right hon. Gentleman never proposed anything worse than this we should have very little about which to quarrel with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNC- TIONS OF COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall impose any duty on the Commission to maintain or increase the rents of their dwellings beyond what is reasonable, regard being had to rents prevailing in similar areas and neighbouring areas.
Clause 2 (2) lays down the general duty of the Commission as being:
…to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it…
It goes on to say that the Commission is to
…have regard …to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there.
What we desire to do is to make it perfectly clear that the duty to enhance the value of the land and the return


obtained by the Commission from it is not to go so far as to lay on the Commission a duty to maintain high rents for dwellings where they already exist in the new towns or to increase the rents, and we suggest that the standard of what is reasonable in this matter of rents should be similar areas and neighbouring areas. I think we may take "similar" areas as other new towns in or about that part of the world, and in respect of "neighbouring areas" I think we may take the rents which are being charged for council houses by local authorities round about the new towns.
I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that something of this sort is not required. He may say that it is already sufficiently provided for by the reference to "convenience and welfare", but there can be no doubt that the rents in new towns in the past have tended to exceed the level of rents round about the new towns. There are all sorts of cases. They appear in report after report dealing with new towns. I remember cases in Peterlee, to begin with, where very large figures were given for the difference at that time. I think it is correct to say that in no new towns have the rents fallen to the level of the rents round about the new towns. In other words, the development corporation rents have been higher. In Corby, the new town in my constituency, there existed for some time, and there still exists, some discrepancy between the rents of the development corporation and the rents of the urban district council which had itself done a great deal of building in the new town for what have been, broadly speaking, new town purposes. That is how the question has arisen.
It has not only arisen in particular cases. It has arisen for two reasons. The first reason is that the development corporations conduct their operations on money borrowed from the Treasury, and borrowed at rates which have risen considerably and which at present and in recent years have been a good deal higher than the rates applying to much of the money which in the normal course of things would be borrowed by a neighbouring local authority.
One could go into detail about this. It is true to say that a great deal of

money in the case of some development corporations was borrowed at an earlier stage in their history under the Labour Government when money was cheaper, and deliberately cheaper, and that the rise has taken place under the Tory Government which has, on the whole, kept to a dear money policy for reasons into which I need not now go. It is true that recently there has been a slight falling off, but, by and large, it is still true to say that any recently borrowed money has had a fairly stiff rate of interest. The development corporations themselves in their reports have attributed the high rents that they have had to charge very largely to this factor. I remember that when the chairman of the Basildon Corporation was giving evidence before the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee he was questioned about high rents and asked how far they were caused by increased costs of building and how far by increased interest rates, and he replied that the increased interest rates were the most important factor. As I see it, the Commission will take over from the development corporations and it will be in a similar position. Monetary policy rests, of course, with the Government.
The second reason for the higher rents is that it is broadly true to say that a development corporation has less opportunity of spreading its rent level over a wide area than a large local authority.
Accepting those two reasons, as I do for the moment, I see, without approving of them, the causes of these high rents. They have become a matter not merely of social justice and social expediency but also one affecting the purpose of the new towns themselves. I remember that in a recent report the Cwmbran new town stated that it was finding it difficult, because of the high rents which it had to charge, to fulfil its purpose as a development corporation, which was to house people who were working in that part of the world and to provide accommodation for people whose pay and so on were at the current level there.
There is yet another kind of case. Again I take Corby as an instance. During the recent difficulties in the steel industry when a great many people in Corby and other towns having large steel plants were either out of a job or at any rate on considerably reduced earnings,


the question of the high rents naturally began to become acute. There has been an improvement which we all welcome, but these ups and downs have been a part of the history of the steel industry for a very long time now. I only took it as an instance, and it is quite obvious that there may be other cases in which employment cannot always be relied upon, and in which a rent which was possible at a higher level of earnings become exceedingly difficult or even impossible.
To put the matter very succinctly, as I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the Committee, the question of the rent of dwellings in the new towns has always been a very real one. There has tended to be a quite considerable difference between the rents of the development corporations and the rents of the local authorities, and the effect of these high rents and of that difference has been to make it more difficult for the new towns to do their work.
If I may take one final instance, I remember very well ascertaining from someone in Corby what he was paying in rent for his two-roomed house—I think it was—at the time. He was a man of mature age with a wife, still working, and he was actually paying about twice what he had paid under a local authority in Scotland, from which country he had come to Corby. These high rents really have a rather perilous effect.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not take refuge in questions of verbal construction. It can do no conceivable harm to put this provision into the Bill. It is obvious that there is a good social reason for having it in the Bill, and I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that he sought to attribute to the words "convenience and welfare" in Committee a breadth of meaning which I find rather difficult to follow. If he has to say that, by implication, they include keeping a reasonable level of rents, my answer to him is this. He may or may not be right, but it can do no harm, in a problem which is extremely important for the new towns, to have an express provision in the Bill that the duty to enhance the value of the assets and the return from them should not extend to any unreasonably high rents in relation to any neighbouring rents.
I repeat that I am referring to the rents of dwellings, because it is there that the social danger of unreasonably high rents has been shown to exist and still exists. I hope that I am not to be led off this Amendment by the question of whether or not "convenience and welfare" include it, because if they do, it could do no harm by repeating it, and if there is any doubt, or even for the purpose of emphasising the matter, it is better to have it in than to leave it out.

Mr. Bevins: I am afraid it is my task to fulfil the worst expectations of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but, at least, I will try to speak as succinctly as did the hon. and learned Gentleman in putting his case for the Amendment.
This Amendment would form part of the provisions of Clause 2 (2), and its intention is quite clear—notably that the Commission shall not be compelled to charge rents which are too high by reference to rents charged in similar areas and neighbouring areas. It seems to me that even if the principle of this Amendment were acceptable to my right hon. Friend, we should find it very difficult indeed, in relation to the new towns, to say what are similar and neighbouring areas. I do not want to make heavy weather of that point, but I think that from the point of view of construction, it would prove a very real difficulty.
As I understand it, the Amendment is an attempt to restrict the Commission in its rent policies, and I must say that if it proved to be workable, it would have the consequence of producing a yardstick of what a reasonable rent amounted to, which would be quite unacceptable to the Government as a matter of policy. It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that house rents in the new towns are relatively high. That is so for a number of reasons. They are high because, except at Welwyn, practically all the new houses have been built since 1947 at the relatively high post-war building costs. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the development corporations have no stock of relatively cheap pre-war houses which they could use, if so minded, to moderate the general level of rents which they charge.
It may be the case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the interest


rates which the development corporations have had to pay have again been relatively high. We all know that rates have been high during the last few years; but, speaking from memory, the average rate of interest which the corporations are paying is little more than 4 per cent. on all outstanding indebtedness. Whatever the individual effects of these factors, we all recognise that in the new towns rents are higher than the general level of local authority rents throughout the country.
6.15 p.m.
Perhaps I should say that from the start of the new towns, it has been established policy that the outgoings should be covered by rents, plus subsidies and grants. That has been followed throughout the history of the news towns, and, indeed, if the attempt had not been made quite carefully to balance outgoings by income from rents, grants and subsidies, the financial condition of the new town corporations at this moment would be deplorable.

Mr. Mitchison: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he is now including the rents of industry in the new towns, as well as those of dwellings.

Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true, but, so far as housing is concerned, what I am saying is also true. If that policy had not been followed, the financial situation of the respective corporations would not be very happy. I think it is also fair to say that, although rents are relatively high, they have not proved so high in the past as to discourage people from wishing to live in the new towns. In fact, there is no new town throughout the length of Great Britain which has any difficulty at all in securing tenants for its houses. Indeed, most new town corporations have very lengthy lists of people who would like to occupy their houses.
Here, I must fulfil the anticipation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, in any case, my right hon. Friend looks upon this Amendment as superfluous. As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, it is one of the duties of the Commission to have regard to the welfare of the people living in the new towns, and that we feel must include the fact that they are not permitted to charge extortionate rents. That is to say, they can charge, quite clearly,

rents which are something like the rents which exist at the present level, but not excessive rents in the sense of rents which will either drive people away from the new towns or inflict hardship upon them. If they were to do that, it would be inconsistent with the Commission's duty as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill.
For these reasons, this Amendment is looked upon by my right hon. Friend as unnecessary and therefore unacceptable.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to support the Amendment. The proposal it makes is particularly important for Scottish new towns. One of the difficulties about finding tenants for Scottish new towns is the wide disparity of new town rents compared with those charged by neighbouring local authorities. It may well be argued, and I would not disagree, that many local authorities charge unduly low rents, but it is important, if the new towns are to be a success in Scotland, that there should be reasonable uniformity between their rents and those of surrounding local authorities.

Mr. Martin Maddan: On a point of order. I understand that the Bill relates solely to England and Wales. I cannot therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's references to Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is basing upon Scottish experience an argument which he thinks might be of use to the House. It is, of course, a fact that this is an English Bill and therefore we must not have too much detail presented about Scotland.

Mr. Thomson: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I was doing exactly that—presenting an illustration from my experience of Scottish new towns. There is another aspect of our Scottish experience which I will come to in a moment if I may. I am now speaking of the danger of pursuing a rent policy in new towns out of step with the rent policies of local authorities in the same area. It would be an improvement in that direction to have laid upon the Commission the obligation proposed in the Amendment.
I will not go into that point any further, or give details of rents being


charged by Scottish development corporations and compare them with the rents charged by Scottish local authorities. I would merely remind the Minister of information that I gave him in Committee on the Bill, on the subject of the Scottish Special Housing Association. This is a Government corporation similar to the Commission being set up in the Bill.
In my constituency we have had a situation in which the Scottish Special Housing Association was landlord of about 2,000 houses while the local authority was also a very considerable landlord. Their houses were mixed up on the same estate at different rents, the corporation rents being considerably higher than those charged by the local authority. That fact caused a great deal of difficulty and a lot of unnecessary friction, and made the work of operating a sensible rent policy very much more difficult than it would otherwise have been. My experience in Scotland in both those respects leads one to believe that the proposed Commission should have laid on it the duty proposed in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
From my experience in new towns I know that the rents being charged for the majority of ordinary tenants there are considerably higher than the tenants had been accustomed to pay as tenants in private, rent-controlled houses in London or other local authority areas. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that the high rents have been no obstacle to finding tenants for new-town houses. That is so, and is partly due to the desperate housing shortage in the London area. Many people find that rents now take a bigger share of their household budgets than they ought.
An additional consideration is that new towns were not supposed to be esoteric and exotic. We wanted the new towns to be normal communities which, in due course, would have a normal life and be occupied by a reasonable cross-section of the community. There is a danger that new town populations, though very excellent people, as I have every reason to know, are not typical of the community, are not a cross-section of the people, say, from the London boroughs. They tend to be a higher type of community, from the ranks of the higher technically-skilled manual

workers. They make a very pleasant environment to live in, but they are not quite what was intended.
We ought to have a much more balanced population in the new towns and the rent structure ought to represent the general rent structure of the communities around the new towns. It is for that reason that my hon. and learned Friend has put forward this Amendment. We ought to have had a much more satisfactory answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Maddan: Following as I do the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), I am bound to reflect that the underlying spirit of the people in the new towns is not one of wishing to hire houses from bankrupt landlords any more than it is of working for employers who do not make profit. In fact, the hon. Member himself said that the people who live in the new towns are the industrial aristocracy of our time. I think that is true. If we try to build communities with great spirit in them we must be careful not to undermine the pride which they have in themselves and in their new towns.
The Amendment is wholly out of line with that idea, because it would undermine in just exactly that way. Nobody enjoys paying high rents and everybody would prefer his rent to be lower; but it all depends on what we get in return. Nobody likes paying for an expensive suite of furniture, but if it is more comfortable and of better appearance people will be willing to pay more for it. The fact is that the new towns have good appearance, good layouts, and good houses with good facilities in them. The amenities are improved, the standards of employment are high and the factories are modern for modern industries which have great hopes for future stability, and indeed for expansion.
What the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wants is to undermine the whole basis of the new towns which have become an experiment of which we are proud on both sides of the House. We hope that the new towns will soon cease to be an experiment and will become part of the established life of our country, but as soon as we start putting into the Government's paw the houses in which new town residents live


we shall undermine the self-respect and the spirit of the people living in those new towns.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Member will surely agree that that is exactly what the Bill does; it hands over the residents of the new towns to a Government Commission. He will understand what I mean if I say that I do not like aristocracies, whether they are industrial or otherwise.

Mr. Maddan: Whether he likes them or not, the hon. Gentleman lives in the midst of one, and I am certain that they are all very pleased to have him among them. As to the Bill's handing over the residents to a Government Commission, that is entirely irrelevant. The houses were built by Government corporations, and as the development ceases the landlords of the new towns will become the new Commission. This in no way undermines the spirit and self-respect of the new towns or of the individuals in them. What would undermine the self-respect of the communities and the individuals would be to put their housing on an uneconomic basis. The Amendment seeks to do just that. It intends, In fact, to extend the charity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Member had concluded his speech and was replying to a subsequent intervention. Perhaps he had only given way; I may be wrong.

Mr. Maddan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had only given way, but I was just about to conclude that the Amendment seems to seek to extend to the residents of new towns just that charity which the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends so much condemned earlier this afternoon.

Mr. MacColl: The Parliamentary Secretary spent half of his speech explaining that the Amendment was vicious in its essence and agreeing with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) that it ought not to be in the Bill. The other half of his speech he devoted to explaining that this Amendment was already in the Bill and was covered by the second half of the subsection, which refers
to the convenience and welfare of persons residing

in a new town. If we followed the logic of the hon. Member for Hitchin, we would not have the second part of the subsection in at all because it limits the discretion of the Commission and does not allow it a free hand. That is what the hon. Member is objecting to. The Amendment does not impose a duty on the Commission and does not narrow its discretion but widens it. Subsection (2) places a general duty on the Commission to
enhance the value of the land.
That means that someone has to spend more money in getting a return from the land. It does not mean that the Commission has just to break even with normal expenses, but that there is a duty to get the maximum that can be got out of the land.
That is recognised by including in the second part of the subsection the qualification about having regard to the "welfare of persons residing" in the new towns. The Amendment seeks to add to that general protection of tenants and to make absolutely clear, not that the Commission cannot raise rents if it wants to or if it finds itself in the red but that it does not have to raise rents in order to carry out its duty to
enhance the value of the land
In other words, the situation we are envisaging is what happens where a profit is being made. Is the Commission to go on getting a bigger and bigger profit in order to carry out the duty of enhancing the value of the land, or is it to be enabled to have regard to the general needs of the community and to reduce rents? This Amendment merely enables the Commission to do that if it wants to. That is very reasonable, and there should be no objection to it taking account of the welfare of the tenants.

Mr. Mitchison: I shall not keep the House for long, but there are two points I want to make. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). The object of the new towns, near London certainly, includes some contribution to the solution of London's housing problem. If the new towns are to have unreasonably high rents, or rents which are only fit for an aristocracy of some sort, they will not be able to carry out one of their primary purposes, which


is to help towards the solving of London's housing problem.
The second point is that it seems complete nonsense to hope that the new towns will contain some sort of aristocracy and nothing else and to do so on the ground that we must not have subsidised housing. Subsidised housing is, of course, what we have always had in the new towns, and this Bill continues it. There is no question whatever about the actual subsidies. I should not take the point from the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), but for the fact that there have been rather ominous signs of a similar point of view among other hon. Members opposite. It seems now to be a considered point of the Tory Party that the community which it wants to see in the new towns is not to be one generally representative of the whole country nor of the whole neighbourhood of a new town, but one simply limited to those who can afford to pay what, from the point of view of lower-paid workers, are unreasonably high rents. I cannot believe that that is a reasoned conclusion. If we want people who are getting ordinary unskilled wages to come from London or elsewhere to live in the new towns, there should be some provision to prevent unreasonably high rents.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary himself recognised that. He sought to import into the general words "convenience and welfare" such an artificial and remarkable description of unreasonable rents that he convinced me of the necessity of putting something more explicit into the Bill. If "convenience and welfare" can have the sort of meaning which he and his right hon. Friend

sometimes attribute to that phrase, I completely fail to see how reference to
similar areas and neighbouring areas
will cause any difficulty at all. I went out of my way when moving the Amendment to give instances of similar areas in relation to new towns round London, and "neighbouring areas" means what it says—neighbouring areas to those new areas round London itself.

It is true that the development corporations have had to balance their accounts and that part of their income is in rent. There has always been the question, in every one of these new towns, of how to keep a balance between industrial and commercial rents, on the one hand, and house rents on the other. Quite deliberately, this Amendment is intended to prevent development corporations putting up dwelling rents to an unreasonably high level while, at the same time, not making any corresponding increase, or making a decrease, in industrial and commercial rents. If the expenses of the development corporation—or, in this instance, of the Commission, which will be carrying on the work of the corporations—is to involve an increase of some sort, on the whole history of the new towns, and having regard to their social purpose, that increase ought to be in industrial and commercial rents and not in dwelling rents, which ought to be at a reasonable level. Stevenage must be a very remarkable place. I have never before heard of a place where anyone's dignity was wounded and one's pride hurt because one was not forced to pay an unreasonably high rent.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 220.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[6.39 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyd, T. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Ainsley, J. W
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cronin, J. D.


Albu, A. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Baird, J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Delargy, H. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Diamond, John


Benson, Sir George
Carmichael, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Beswick, Frank
Champion, A. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edelman, M.


Blyton, W. R.
Cliffe, Michael
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Clunie, J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bowles, F. G.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)




Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington A. M.


Foot, D. M.
McInnes, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mahon, Simon
Sorensen, R. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Spriggs, Leslie


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Steele, T.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.
Stonehouse, John


Hale, Leslie
Messer, Sir F.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.


Hannan W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hastings, S.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Healey, Denis
Moss, R.
Symonds, J. B.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Holman, P.
Orbach, M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.
Thornton, E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Owen, W. J.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John
Weitzman, D.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, T. F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pentland, N.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslle
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Wigg, George


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


King, Dr. H. M.
Redhead, E. C.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, G. M.
Reid, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ledger, R. J.
Reynolds G. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lewis, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Altken, W. T.
Burden, F. F. A.
Gammans, Lady


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, s.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Gibson-Watt, D.


Arbuthnot, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glover, D.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th, W.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Atkins, H. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Godber, J. B.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gough, C. F. H.


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Graham, Sir Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cunningham, Knox
Green, A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dance, J. C. G.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimond, J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
de Ferranti, Basil
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bingham, R. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Gurden, Harold


Bishop F. P.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Body, R. F.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Duthie, Sir William
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Braine, B. R.
Erroll, F. J.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Brewis, John
Fell, A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Finlay, Graeme
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bryan, P.
Forrest, G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.







Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.


Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Sharples, R. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas
Shepherd, William


Horobin, Sir Ian
Mathew, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mawby, R. L.
Speir, R. M.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, John (Test)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Neave, Airey
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, Sir Henry


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan
Temple, John M.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Joseph, Sir Keith
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Kirk, P. M.
Page, R. G.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Leburn, W. G.
Peel, W. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington Capt. R. A.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Loveys, Walter H.
Pott, H. P.
Webbe, Sir H.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Powell, J. Enoch
Webster, David


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McAdden, S. J.
Rawlinson, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woollam, John Victor


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Renton, D. L. M.



McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robertson, Sir David
Mr. Hughes-Young and


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robson Brown, Sir William

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "whether".

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would like to take at the same time the next two Amendments, that in line 20 to leave out "or on revenue" and that in line 21 to leave out from "allowance" to the end of the line.

Mr. Mitchison: These lines are part of a subsection which deals with capital and revenue surplus in the hands of the Commission and which enables the Minister and the Treasury between them to direct the payment of anything up to the amount of that surplus in effect into the Treasury. These three Amendments seek to leave out any reference to revenue surplus while leaving in the reference to capital surplus.
I agree at once that that leaves it open to the Commission to do something else. It is entitled to put a revenue surplus aside and, after a time, in ordinary accounting practice it may transfer it to capital and get round the matter in that way. I see no reason for an express provision for the transfer of revenue

surplus out of the hands of the Commission and back into the Exchequer. I appreciate the reason in regard to capital surplus, but not in regard to revenue surplus. What is the Exchequer's position? The Exchequer has lent, in one way or another, all the money with which the new towns have been built. That has been treated for all purposes as capital, interest has been paid on it, and so on. It is right that the money so lent should in due course, and subject to the general financial position of the new town, be paid back to the Treasury. Why should a revenue surplus be put into that same pool? That appears to be the effect of the provision in the Clause.
It may be said that this is merely a matter of account; why bother about it, particularly as there is a later Amendment which would limit the total of these repayments? My answer is that one must look at the position of the Commission. The Commission is there, as we are told, to maintain and enhance the value of its assets and the return it receives from them, but subject to the qualifications we have been discussing. Those qualifications primarily are the convenience


and welfare of the people living in the new towns.
If there is to be pressure—that is what I am afraid of—from the Minister, or through the Minister from the Treasury, to accumulate revenue surpluses and have them handed over in due course to the Treasury, there will be constant pressure on the Commission on the side of the maintenance and enhancement of the assets and the return from them, as against what is, in this context, the rather opposite interest of the convenience and welfare of the inhabitants.
It may be the kind of case we were discussing on the last Amendment, namely, the question of the level at which the rents of houses in the new towns are to be fixed. It may be a different question, such as the extent of the contribution towards community purposes and amenities which the Commission will make. Equally, it may be in relation to commercial and industrial rents. In the nature of the case, the Commission is a holding body. So far as its finances are concerned, it is simply its duty to maintain and enhance the capital value, but not to make and accumulate revenue surpluses. The history of the new towns in relation to things like rent levels and the provision of amenities is such that a provision for a transfer of revenue surplus in this way has dangerous implications.
I shall not repeat what has been said about high rents or the admission by the Government that rents in the new towns, as is the fact, have been distinctly higher than elsewhere. Up to date, the provision of amenities, which is provided for in the Bill, has been distinctly on the scanty side, and the Government recognise that in some Clauses of the Bill to which I need not refer in detail.
There is again a real danger when one comes to the question of industrial and commercial rents. I should not be in order if I went into it in any detail, but it is clear that one of the major problems confronting the new towns, and therefore confronting the Commission as and when it takes them over, is the provision of sufficient employment, particularly for the young people who are growing up in these new towns. If sufficient employment is to be provided, industry, new factories, new offices, etc., must be attracted to the new towns. I would

sooner see any surplus that there was "ploughed back into the business", to use a phrase perhaps more appropriate to yesterday's debate, than handed back to the Treasury as a revenue surplus.

Mr. Maddan: What the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just said seems to be a complete contradiction of what he said several minutes ago, when he concluded his speech on the previous Amendment by saying that perhaps under certain circumstances the rents of factories, offices and the like should be increased at the expense of house rents.

Mr. Mitchison: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) has given me the opportunity to explain what I said. I said that, if the value of the assets and the return from them are to be enhanced, it is very much better that that should be done out of the rents of factories and offices rather than out of the rents of dwellings, which seem to me to be already too high for the social purposes of the new towns. If employment, especially youth employment, is to be attracted to these new towns, further factories and offices must be provided. That is a matter which I cannot go into at length on this Amendment, but I am sure that we all recognise the need for it. The hon. Gentleman particularly will recognise the need, because he represents a new town and he knows how threatening and potentially acute the whole problem of youth employment is there.
I do not want money to be accumulated as a revenue surplus when it might be much better used to reduce rents of dwellings, if that is the right thing to do having regard to their level, or, if it is thought better to do so, the rents of offices and factories to provide additional employment. I need not go into the distribution between one and another. I simply say that, having regard to what it is doing and what it has to do, the Commission and its Committees will not be in any position to accumulate a revenue surplus, that it ought not to be encouraged to do so and that, so far as there is a revenue surplus and it is not desired to plough it back into the undertaking, it can after a time be transferred to capital and moved over in that way.
The broad question raised by the Amendment is whether the object of the Commission should be to make the revenue received, principally from rents, such that there will be a surplus of such an order that it might be transferred to the Exchequer under the provisions of subsection (7). My answer is that it is not, and should not be, the function of the Commission to accumulate a revenue surplus of that order. I am not for a moment contesting that it should pay its way as it goes. I am not on that point. We know enough of what is going on in the new towns and of what is probable in their immediate future to say, with confidence, that any revenue surplus ought to be used to reduce rents, to provide more amenities and for various other purposes which will no doubt be known to hon. Members representing new towns. It ought not to be used to pay back to the Treasury what was originally a capital advance, and what will in due course be repaid as a capital advance.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Treasury regards this Bill as a means by which the Treasury can make a profit out of the growth of the new towns. The Amendment embodies that principle. The Treasury is entitled to be repaid such sums as have been advanced to the new town corporations in the past. Those sums are the liabilities of the corporations and we all agree that they must be met by the Commission, when it becomes possessed of the assets and liabilities of the new towns, and that payment by the Commission to the Treasury must be assured.
The Amendment says that if a surplus accrues to the Commission as a result of the further growth and prosperity of the new towns it should go, not to the Treasury but to the provision of the amenities and the further consolidation of the societies in each of the new towns. We all want to see the new towns grow further in community spirit and consciousness, and to develop that consciousness the Commission will need money. The Commission must have the funds necessary to carry out the duties laid on it by Clause 2.
In effect, the Amendment says that the funds required by the Commission to carry out those duties shall be any surpluses accruing to the Commission as the years go by. It is a simple Amendment, and one which I would have thought the Minister could approve in principle. He might also agree that any surplus should be ploughed back into the new towns to be used by the Commission for their betterment—

Mr. Frederic Harris: Surely, such revenue should be capitalised before it is spent on capital expenditure, if it cannot be spent just at the moment?

Mr. Evans: I do not quite understand that. If this enterprise shows a surplus on its working, that is money that any private firm would devote to dividends or capital development. Here it would be money that was surplus to current liabilities and, therefore, available for further capital development; in this case, for the improvement of the facilities and amenities of the new towns.

Mr. H. Brooke: The subsection that it is now sought to amend is designed for the simple purpose of providing for what may happen when there is a revenue surplus. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to me to be reading into the subsection some emotional or hortatory content that is not there.
The way in which the Commission shall carry on its business is set out in earlier parts of the Clause, and we are all familiar now, especially those of us who have been on the Standing Committee, with the Commission's duty to maintain and enhance the value of the land, and also with its power to serve the convenience or welfare of people residing, working or carrying on business in the new towns.
Up to the present, the new towns have not, collectively, thrown up a surplus of revenue account. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, in the last year for which we have the accounts—1957–58—there was an aggregate net deficit of some £900,000, and at 31st March, 1958, the twelve new towns in England and Wales, of which I now speak, were carrying forward an accumulated deficit totalling some £4½ million.
That position has improved, and we all hope that over the 60-year period of the loans the new towns as a whole will break even, but, as I also told the Standing Committee, Crawley, which is most likely to be the first new town to be completed and, therefore, the first to be transferred to the new Commission, is at present running at a deficit, so to speak, and he would certainly be a bold man who would say that Crawley would be out of the red in the financial sense by the time development was completed.
I can, therefore, assure the House that the Commission is not likely to start off with a revenue surplus in the first year but, quite clearly, in this legislation we must envisage that revenue surpluses may arise—we have to look ahead for a number of years—and there may be legislation at some time, although I do not know about that. We were certainly assuming in Standing Committee that we were making provisions for the next 10, 15 or 20 years—the stage of settling down—and that Parliament might then have to look again at the matter.
If revenue surpluses are thrown up, what is to happen to them? Either they must accumulate and lie idly in the bank—and I do not think that anybody would seriously maintain that to be the right use for public money—or be ploughed back into the new towns in some way. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a third possibility; that, unless the subsection is amended, they might be transferred to capital account and then paid over to the Treasury.
At this stage, I must say that I think we had better not provide for capital and revenue to be used interchangeably. It is better to recognise that surpluses may arise on either revenue or capital account. The responsibilities of the Commission for the convenience and welfare of people living in the towns has already been indicated in the Bill, so that there is no question of the Commission, when considering its financial position, simply forgetting about those people. It is one of their responsibilities to have regard to them.
At the same time, I would put it to the House that it would be unreasonable if we were to envisage that the only two possibilities for the disposal of a revenue surplus would be either to keep it idle in the bank indefinitely or to plough it

back into the new towns. This is public money. The surplus has been earned by the wise administration of public money, and it would seem that its disposal ought to be determined in the widest public interest rather than that it should be automatically hypothecated for the benefit of people living in the towns. This £300 million or £400 million of capital expenditure from which the revenue surplus would accrue has been provided not only by the people living in Stevenage, Harlow, Crawley and elsewhere but by the whole population of the country. It is the investment of the nation as a whole, and the nation as a whole should receive some consideration in the disposal of any surplus if a surplus should arise.
I am aware of the views that have been expressed not only in this House but outside by the Town and Country Planning Association bearing on this point, that if there is a true surplus it should either be ploughed back into the towns or be used to finance further overspill operations elsewhere. Frankly, I do not think that sort of argument has ever commended itself to Parliament in relation to any other public undertakings. For a number of years when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I watched the financial outcome of the transactions of the Carlisle State management scheme, but I cannot recollect anybody suggesting that the profits made on that scheme should necessarily be ploughed back into bigger and better public houses in Carlisle. Yet that seems to me to be a fairly close parallel with what is suggested in this case.
The Government of the day must retain freedom to decide in the broadest interests how a revenue surplus should be disposed of according to the circumstances and needs of the time, and I do not think any responsible Government could bind itself by Statute, as it appears to me that these Amendments would so bind it, to earmark that part of public funds for particular services for all time.
Those are the reasons why I could not advise the House to accept these Amendments. It is not the case that any revenue surplus will automatically get paid over to the Treasury. There have got to be consultations. Consideration has to be given, as laid down here, to the future requirements of the Commission, including—and we introduced this Amendment


in Committee—any contributions that may fall to be made to providing amenities under subsection (4, b), and also consideration has to be given to the possible needs of transfer to reserve.
Indeed, as I explained in Committee, there could be no question of the Minister directing the Commission to hand over a revenue surplus to the Treasury when it was quite clear that perhaps the next year or the year after, or the year after that, the Commission was likely to run into deficit. One must be sensible about all these things. But it seems to the Government common sense to provide specifically in this Bill for what may happen if a revenue surplus is thrown up. We ought not to let the Bill go from the House in a position so that if a revenue surplus does emerge only two things can be done with it—either that it should be ploughed back into the towns or that it should lie idle.
It may well be that, in the circumstances of the time, a revenue surplus which has emerged from the use of public funds should be paid into the national Exchequer and used in some other way for the benefit of the people as a whole. We are not saying that always will happen, but we are saying that it is right that the Bill should provide for that as a third possibility.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I followed with fascination the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I could not make up my mind whether he was speaking in his present capacity as Minister of Housing and Local Government and for new towns, or in his past capacity as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When he said to us, in such characteristic tones with which we who were in the Committee have become so familiar, that we must be sensible in this matter, he was meaning that we must be sensible from the point of view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and not, as far as I could understand, sensible from the point of view of the Minister responsible for one of the greatest social experiments that have ever taken place in this country.
The question at issue here is what sort of share the new towns and the communities which exist there are going to

enjoy of the revenues that they themselves will play a considerable part in creating. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy between the new towns and the pubs in Carlisle was singularly inappropriate and ill-chosen. The reasons for passing the public houses of Carlisle into public ownership date back many years, and they were very different from the reasons for setting up the new towns. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of passing over the revenues of the Carlisle pubs to the Treasury—and, not being a drinker of beer in Carlisle pubs I do not know, but I should guess that there are two points of view on that—they do not seem to apply to the new towns. The State-owned pubs are business undertakings, nationally owned, and they ought to be run, I take it, as business propositions.
Is the Minister saying to us, as the Minister responsible for this great social experiment, that the new towns are to be treated simply as a commercial proposition to which one should apply commercial standards of accounting? It does not seem to me to be the proper way to approach the matter. Certainly the taxpayers of this country, who have put up the investment in the new towns and who provided the capital which allowed the new towns to be built, should have serious consideration in the financial running of the new towns. We must make sure that the money that the nation as a whole has put up is properly looked after. If there is a surplus on it, we must deal with that surplus in the national interest as well as in the interests of the new towns.
The purpose of setting up the new towns was not to make a surplus. The purpose was to establish new and decent communities which would set a new standard of how people should live together in communities. If the motive in having new towns is the motive which ought to be dominant in the mind of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it is not, perhaps, the motive which was dominant in the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the first charge on the surplus of the new towns ought to be to increase then-amenities and not necessarily to increase the amenities of a particular new town in which that surplus is earned.
There will be inequalities amongst the new towns. Some new towns will be in a more fortunate position than others. I should have thought that the surplus ought to be earmarked in the first instance for the same kind of operations which led to the success in the new town which has earned a surplus. There is a good deal to be said from the Town and Country Planning Association point of view that the surplus should be earmarked for further overspill operations which would help to extend the present benefits of new towns to many thousands of other people throughout the country.
The Minister, in rejecting the Amendment, is adopting the sort of attitude which we do not expect from the Minister responsible for standing up to the Treasury on behalf of good standards of town planning. He has adopted the attitude of the watch-dog of the Treasury. It is most unfortunate that he should have divested himself of his present position and reverted to his previous post in the Government.

Mr. Gough: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) made two points to which a reply should be given. First, he spoke of the share which the people in the new towns should have out of the prosperity of the towns, that is, from the surpluses. I am very interested in this, for I represent one of the new towns. This matter is clearly mentioned in the Clause as it stands. It is provided that these revenue surpluses, should they arise, will be transferred only after making provision for suitable reserves and after providing such amenities as are mentioned in subsection (4, b).
The hon. Gentleman admitted that the nation as a whole, which has made an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds, should be properly looked after. In my view, we should go further. We have always said that not only should the taxpayer be properly looked after, but the moneys should be repaid. They will never be paid back unless, when there are any revenue surpluses over and above what is required for suitable reserves and amenities, those revenue surpluses, with the capital surpluses, go towards final repayment, as we all hope, in sixty years.

Mr. Slater: I find the attitude of the Minister and the attitude of the hon.

Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), who represents one of the new towns, very significant. I cross swords with them here. I do not know what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency during the last three years. I assume that rents there have gone up tremendously as a result of Government policy, as they have in other new towns. I do not know whether it is the case in his new town that a very high proportion of the families find that it is necessary for both husband and wife to take up employment in order to meet the costs imposed upon them as a result of living in the new town. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that in the new town in my constituency the majority of wives have to work in order to augment the family budgets in an effort to meet the increased rents.
What is to be the position of the Commission, having regard to the high rents which people are having to meet and having regard to the fact that property may deteriorate over the years? Does the Minister really think that the reserves available will be sufficient to meet any form of deficiency which may arise in respect of the property? What accommodation—

Mr. Speaker: I hardly think that this arises on the Amendment. All that the Amendment does is to seek to provide that if there is a revenue surplus it need not be paid into the Treasury. It applies only if there is a revenue surplus. There is nothing in the Amendment about how the revenue surplus arises. As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman was arguing about the causes of a possible surplus. I think that that is outside the Amendment.

Mr. Slater: My point, Mr. Speaker, relates to the use of the surplus which is bound to result from the high rents that tenants in the new towns are having to pay. I want to know what accommodation the tenants in new towns will receive under the Clause which the Minister seeks to have put in the Bill. The Amendment is designed to give better accommodation to them.

Mr. Mitchison: As one hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, this is a revenue surplus, so far as the Bill goes, after providing for future requirements.


The right hon. Gentleman chooses to call it public money. That is not quite right. Public money has been lent to the development corporations and it has been used to create various assets, houses, for instance, and the revenue comes from letting the houses or from letting other assets such as factories and so forth. It is not in that sense public money at all. It is the return which the development corporation or, in this instance, the Commission will receive from the use of assets supplied out of public funds
I take leave to remind the House again that interest has been paid and is being paid on the loans. The question now is, ought the Treasury, in addition to the capital repayment of its advances and in addition to the interest paid on those advances, to have the revenue surplus as well? We say that it should not. The right hon. Gentleman asks what we would do with it; should we leave it idle in the bank? The answer to that, of course, is that one may temporarily have to do something like that with it, but, ultimately, what we want to do is what I called—he followed the phrase—plough it back into the undertaking of the new town.
The right hon. Gentleman asks us why. The answer is that one must look a little at the facts of this particular problem. I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman said, that there will be no question of a revenue surplus for the Commission as a whole for quite a number of years. Moreover, I assert that, when that question does arise, we shall be very near indeed to the moment when Parliament will have to look at the matter again—as the right hon. Gentleman puts it—or when some future Parliament—as I prefer to put it—will have to put into the Bill a number of things about the future of new towns which the right hon. Gentleman has been studiously anxious to leave out. Those are the answers to such questions as what is to happen to the new towns finally, and when will it happen?
For the moment, what is the position? There are rents from both houses and factories which really ought to be reduced. There are amenities which should be provided. It is possible that further advances will be made from the Treasury and used for some of those

purposes, but what we are now considering is this. If there is a revenue surplus, what is the right thing to do with it? My answer is that the right thing to do with it is to let it go back to the new towns and the inhabitants of the new towns to use in lowering rents. providing amenities and so on.
There is no equity at all in allowing the Treasury to have the revenue surplus when it is not entitled to it, and when the surplus is, in fact, what has been taken from the pockets of the new town as a community. The surplus, if there is too much, is due back to the members of the new town community, not to the Treasury. On every principle of financial fairness, there ought not to be a revenue surplus for any length of time. It ought to be ploughed back, to use that expression again.
I hope that the inhabitants of the new towns will note the Treasury character of the Bill. Much of it seems to be an attempt not only to secure repayment of capital advanced by the Treasury, upon which interest is being paid, but also to make some sort of profit, a profit at the expense of the community living in the new towns. Be it remembered that people are living in the new towns, however comfortably they may be living there, at an expense much greater than the average. The difficulty is to find places in the new towns for the lower-paid people because it costs so much to live there. Be it remembered, also, that if the social purpose of the new towns is to be effected, it will not be effected by keeping those people out.
7.30 p.m.
I object to this provision, not only because I think that it ought to be ploughed back but also because a revenue surplus itself depends on what we spend before we get the surplus. With a provision of this sort, there would be constant pressure from the Treasury on the Minister and from the Minister on the Commission to accumulate a revenue surplus and to pay some of it back to the Treasury. I think that that is wrong in principle and in relation to the social purpose of the new towns.

Question put, That "whether" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 176.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[7.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (Woodside)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Green, A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Arbuthnot, John
Grimond, J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Atkins, H. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Airey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Harmar


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nugent, Richard


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Partridge, E.


Bingham, R. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Peel, W. J.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Hobson, John (Warwick&amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Black, Sir Cyril
Holt, A. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, R. F.
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, Sir lan
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Howard, John (Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Redmayne, M.


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, D. L. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsm'th. W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Russell, R. S.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kaberry, D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kirk, P. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Corfleld, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Speir, R. M.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leburn, W. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Storey, S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


de Ferranti, Basil
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, S. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Duthie, Sir William
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fell, A.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Finlay, Graeme
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wall, Patrick


Forrest, G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maddan, Martin
Webbe, Sir H.


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Godber, J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Woollam, John Victor


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mathew, R.



Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Mr. Whitelaw and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Boyd, T. C.


Ainsley, J. W.
Benson, Sir George
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beswick, Frank
Brockway, A. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Baird, J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Burke, W. A.


Balfour, A.
Bowles, F. G.
Burton, Miss F. E.







Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, B.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ledger, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Stonehouse, John


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, D. M.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, Sir F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thornton, E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Moss, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hastings, S.
Owen, W. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.).


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, John
Willey, Frederick


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pearson, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end to insert:
Provided that the total of sums paid by the Commission under this subsection shall not at any time exceed the total of liabilities transferred to the Commission from development corporations, being liabilities properly chargeable to capital account by a development corporation.
I need not detain the House very long because some of the ground has already been covered. This is a further stage in what might be called the milking operation, the taking away from the Commission of some of the liquid assets which it has managed to accumulate. I accept what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said a few minutes ago, that the public who have subscribed the money to start the new towns should be paid back what they subscribe. That is common ground between us. They have certainly launched

the undertaking, fairly well protected by the security of the operation. Nevertheless they have put up the money, and before there is any distribution of surpluses certainly there should be repayment. That is provided for and accepted by our suggested proviso. The case for handing over more than the Exchequer has put into the new towns, however, is not quite as strong as that. That is why we seek to limit the withdrawals to the actual cost—the capital investment represented by the new towns—put up by the Exchequer. That is a principle which the Minister accepted in the case of the sewerage undertakings that we considered in Committee. If he could accept it in that case, there should not be much difficulty in his accepting it in this instance.
A number of people are partners in the undertaking of a new town. There


is certainly the Exchequer, which put up the money. There are the corporation and the people who have built the town and been responsible for its development, and there are the people who have moved into the town and settled there and the industries that have come to the town. All these people have a right to be considered.
It is an interesting point, although you would not want me to reflect on it at any length, Mr. Speaker, that the only people who get no benefit at all at present from the success of a new town are those who have put the work into building it up, namely, the staff and the corporation. They are thrown out without more than a formal word of thanks. They get nothing out of the success of the job they have done except the privilege of being unemployed. The Government are to get back the money which they invested in the new town, and that is quite right. The town itself will derive benefit from the increase in rateable value, the increase in the assets of the town and the general good will attached to the town as a pleasant and profitable place in which to live and to trade.
The future of the new towns however, is not yet decided. That was stated in the previous debate and certainly on Second Reading. We do not know what the ultimate end of the new towns will be. This is a transitional stage that they should be under the Commission as a holding body, holding the assets of the new towns until the second stage of development is finished and they are stabilised with a stable population and their problems are those of a normal town. Then, we are all agreed, the new towns should be looked at again to see what is to be done with them.
My plea is that before we reach that third stage we ought not to milk the Commission of the assets which it is holding. It may well be that a decision is taken that the new town should be handed over to the local authorities. It may be desirable that the profits of the new town should be used, as we were saying earlier, for the development of other new towns. These are all reasonable things to do with the assets.
7.45 p.m.
While we are in this state of uncertainty, however, when we are in what is purely a holding operation by the Commission

and not a final answer, we ought not to allow the assets of the new town to be appropriated by the Exchequer, because the Exchequer will have it both ways. It will have the security of the position of a debenture holder or mortgagee and it has the security of the land and buildings of the new town for getting the interest payable on the debt. At the same time, it wishes to claim the equity of the new town. That seems to be quite indefensible.
Our proviso does not secure that the Exchequer would have to wait to be paid back. It would be entitled to be paid back, so there would be no question whatever about the new town continuing in debt. It would pay off its debt. Once it had done so, however, the Commission would be expected to hold the assets, or to use them or invest them in development—that is something which should be done—but to hold the surplus until a final decision is taken about what is to happen to the town.
I have only one comment on the Minister's earlier remarks, because I anticipate that he might say the same thing again. It rather shocked me when he talked about the money being left in the bank and not used. That was an odd interpretation by a retired Financial Secretary to the Treasury of what happens to money which is placed on deposit in the bank. I would have thought that if there were assets, there was no earthly reason, if they were not wanted, why they should not be used or invested and why either the bank or somebody else should not use them or see that they were put to full use. The benefit from that, however, would accrue to the assets of the Commission and not to the Exchequer.
The broad principle is not substantially different from that of the other Amendments which we have just considered, but I regard this as a reasonable proposal which, I hope, the Minister will accept.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. H. Brooke: The principle that we are debating on the Amendment is the same as on the previous one, but this one deals with payments on capital account and the other dealt with payments of revenue surpluses. When the


1946 Act was enacted, it was laid down that the Exchequer—that is, the taxpayers as a whole—should be, as it were, the residuary legatee of the development corporations. I said in Standing Committee on this Bill that, in the view of the Government, here again the Exchequer—the general body of taxpayers—should be the residuary legatee of the Commission for the new towns.
The purpose of the Amendment is to alter that and to ensure that the people living in the new towns themselves will be the residuary legatee and that if there are capital surpluses beyond a certain figure they are not to be repaid to the Exchequer. If they are not, in words to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) objects, to lie idle—that is, to remain on deposit in the bank—presumably he contemplates that they should be ploughed back into the new towns. That appears to me to be as unacceptable as the previous Amendment.
We are dealing here with a vast undertaking that will have been financed by nearly £400 million advanced by the taxpayers all over the country. It cannot be denied that that is public money. The upshot of the Amendment would be that should things go well and should the financial outcome be so satisfactory as to produce an ultimate surplus on capital account exceeding the capital debt which the Commission takes over, the whole of that excess capital surplus should be available for putting back into the new towns. The hon. Member for Widnes argued that the Treasury, that is to say, the taxpayers, were trying to have it both ways. They were trying to be both debenture holders and equity shareholders. It is a queer sort of debenture because the debenture holder has some right of foreclosing, and what use it would be for the Exchequer to foreclose on the new towns if they were not profitable enough to repay the capital advances, I do not know.
The fact is that considerable risk is being taken with this money. We all hope that the risk will turn out well and that for the loan period of 60 years the financial outturn of the whole undertaking will be sufficiently favourable to ensure that all the obligations are met. We cannot be certain of that. Frankly, I believe that the Exchequer, that is to

say the taxpayers as a whole, need to be looked at just as much in the position of equity shareholders as anything else. They are taking a risk on this; there is no doubt of it.
What the Opposition is saying is that although the taxpayers must take the risk they are not to have any of the surpluses if, in fact, things turn out well. The whole of the surplus is to accrue to those living in the new towns. As I have pointed out one of the powers and responsibilities of the Commission is to have regard to the convenience and welfare of the people living in the new towns and it has powers to make certain payments for amenities and the like and a general power of good administration. There is not the slightest chance that the interest of the people in the new towns will be overlooked.

Mr. MacColl: It is common ground that while the Commission is operating it can plough back money into the new towns. I am suggesting that until the final decision is taken about the future of the new towns as a whole the Commission should be regarded as holding the assets and the Exchequer ought not to get back more than it has put in until that final decision is taken, whichever way that decision may go in the future, which none of us know.

Mr. Brooke: That is so. This is a highly hypothetical Amendment, because it seems to me that it will be quite impossible for the limit contained in this Amendment to be reached within the kind of period which I gather the hon. Gentleman has in mind as the period which ought to elapse before Parliament has another look at the matter and decides what the ultimate future of the towns should be.
I have been studying the Amendment itself, and I thought from reading the Amendment that it was concerned that the taxpayers as a whole should never make a profit out of the new towns. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has put down the Amendment to make sure that the capital surpluses are not disposed of to the Exchequer prematurely. Frankly, I cannot see that on all the forecasts that a reasonable man could make there could be any possibility of these great repayments being made so rapidly as that.
I must look at the Amendment as it stands, and it certainly would provide that as we got to the end of the period of 60 years advances after the towns had been going on for a long time, this Amendment would preclude the taxpayers as a whole from receiving any payment beyond a certain figure and any excess beyond that would have to be ploughed back to the new towns. I am sure that the Government take a different view of this. It is not only the welfare and happiness of the people in the new towns that are at stake, but this very large amount of money which has been put up by the country as a whole. We cannot have regard to one of these and not to the other. We must provide that if the Commission has been administering its property and its assets in a proper way and with due regard to the good of the towns themselves, and if in the end an aggregate capital surplus is thrown up which is greater than the aggregate debt the Commission has taken over, at any rate, it must be for consideration whether some of that income should not accrue to the taxpayers as a whole rather than it should all go into the new towns.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Having listened to the Minister, I thought that I was unduly generous to him on an earlier occasion when I said that I objected to his allowing his past history as Financial Secretary to the Treasury to overcome his present position as Minister of Housing and Local Government. I find now that it is not as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is addressing the House. He appears to be taking up the attitude of some sort of Hugh Fraser or Mr. Clore towards the new towns. He is enunciating not a Governmental doctrine, not even a Treasury doctrine towards the new towns, but a purely capitalist, private enterprise doctrine.
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that, because the community desires to make this very spectacular and, no doubt, in some ways, speculative investment in these great experiments in town planning, the community should not be satisfied with merely getting its money back with a normal rate of interest but in addition should expect to get some surplus provided out of the operation. He is treating the taxpayers of the country in a

way which I do not think they expect to be treated—as private shareholders in the new towns, who expect to have a sort of annual dividend declared on the surpluses in due course. I think that is a most unreasonable way in which to look at it.
It is not, incidentally, the way in which the Government look at their financial operations in many other respects. The Treasury has just given £50 million to Colvilles steel undertaking in Scotland. It is no doubt a risky and speculative national investment, but I am sure that it is a necessary one. In due course the taxpayer will get the £50 million back, with the normal market rate of interest—indeed, a somewhat lower rate of interest—but there is no suggestion that for years after that any further surplus as a result of this investment by the taxpayers should come back to the taxpayers.
Then there is £100 million to be invested in the Cunard liners, again by the taxpayers. The taxpayers will get the £100 million back with interest in due course, but there is no suggestion that any further surplus of profits earned by these great Cunarders should come back to the taxpayers. I should have thought that in those cases the taxpayers had a legitimate right to expect some share in the profits, because they are commercial concerns.
Here we have the taxpayer voluntarily at the elections choosing to make an investment in a great social experiment, and I am sure he does not expect this national social investment to be treated on the commercial, capitalist lines that the Minister is following. I am sure that the ordinary taxpayer, provided his interests are safeguarded and the investment is returned with normal interest, is prepared to say that the surplus earned in future years by the efforts, energy and enterprise of people in the new towns, should go back to the new towns to make them a greater success as a social experiment. If our Amendments have done nothing else, they have revealed a fundamental cleavage of philosophy in tackling the financial problems of the new towns. One of the platitudes uttered in the House is that both sides are in favour of new towns, but this proposal of the Government makes it clear that the approach to new towns is quite different on the Tory


side from what it is on this side. The Government and the Minister are applying to the new towns private enterprise profit-making considerations which I am sure even Conservative voters would not support.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. and learned Member has exhausted his right to speak in seconding the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I thought that that was not the case in formally seconding an Amendment. I notice that one of my hon. Friends was allowed to address the House after formally seconding a previous Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is that in seconding an Amendment one exhausts one's right to speak.

Mr. Mitchison: In those circumstances, I have only to ask the leave of the House to make a short speech. It would have been a short one anyhow.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said. It is quite impossible to reconcile the Government's attitude towards these advances with their attitude towards advances to commercial undertakings. This shows the Tory Party for what it really is. Not only is this impossible to reconcile, but so is something else. The right hon. Gentleman accepted in Committee an Amendment on exactly these lines in relation to a much smaller matter of sewerage undertakings. He accepted an Amendment to the effect that the total repaid should not exceed the total advanced. This is exactly the same point, and what the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do in a small case he is not prepared to do in a large one.
This is indeed a monstrous Treasury Bill. At the end of the time, the Government want to take back not only the money which they put up for a public purpose but also the interest on that money and, in addition, anything more that they can get, and at whose expense? They will get it at the expense of the local authorities which, we believe, will finally take over these new towns. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman has persistently refused to repeat

the pledges given by the Tory Party when we on this side of the House were in power and we passed Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, intending by that Section to give an undertaking that the new towns should go back to the local authorities.
If they do not go back to the local authorities, to whom will they go? Will the right hon. Gentleman sell the lot to some Mr. Clore or some Mr. Hugh Fraser in future? The answer, of course, is that they must go back to the local authorities. They cannot go back to anybody else, unless we are to have in this country some form of capitalist oligarchy so far removed from Parliamentary democracy that even the Tory Party would not be prepared to face it. What will happen is that the Treasury will take not only the rights of debenture holders but also those of shareholders too, and the people from whom the Treasury will take those rights are the people who are living in the new towns. I trust that the people in the new towns will take good account of the Tory Party's attitude towards them and their future.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) still has sinister suspicions. There is no question of the Commission mismanaging these assets and ruining local authorities.

Mr. Mitchison: I really never suggested anything of the sort, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. The point is that the terms on which these new towns must be handed over to somebody—and I say to the local authorities—will have to be settled in future, and it is to those terms that this question is relevant.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member appears to think that by the use of this provision in the Bill some sinister action is planned against the local authorities. There is nothing of the kind in it at all. As I indicated before, we are simply saying that the taxpayers as a whole, rather than the people living in the new towns alone, must be the residuary legatees of the Commission. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) must know that a direct comparison cannot be established between an advance to a company which will form but a small part of its liabilities and


these advances from the Treasury to development corporations, and now to the Commission, which will be the whole of the liabilities. That is why I said that we must think of the Treasury in terms of the shareholder carrying the risk as well as the debenture holder.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that in the case of Colvilles the taxpayers' capital is about two-thirds of the total sums provided by private shareholders who will ultimately share the profits and who are the minority shareholders.

Mr. Brooke: Whatever happens in the new towns only one body has made the advances and provided the whole of the capital, and that is the Exchequer. Therefore, the Exchequer carries a

special risk in these cases. I have no more to say than that I am not speaking now as Financial Secretary to the Treasury but as Minister of Housing and Local Government with the interests of the new towns in my mind the whole of the time. I say that the new towns could not justify themselves to the public as a whole if they were to disregard their obligations to the taxpayers as a whole, and we could not have a situation arising in which it was impossible to do anything with the eventual capital surplus except put it back into the new towns. The taxpayers as a whole must be the residuary legatees.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 206.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[8.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Owen, W. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Bence, C. R- (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Benson, Sir George
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Paton, John


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Pearson, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, T. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, C. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, J. D.
Ledger, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Simon
Sylvester, G. O.


Fitrh, A. E. (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Eric
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, D. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Usborne, H. C.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Moss, R.
Viant, S. P.




Warbey, W. N.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Watkins, T. E.
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Weltzman, D.
Willey, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)



White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




 Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Aitken, W. T.
Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimond, J.
Neave, Alrey


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Atkins, H. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nugent, Richard


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gurden, Harold
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Page, R. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, W. J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Body, R. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, John (Test)
Ramsden, J. E.


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Renton, D. L. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bryan, P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robertson, Sir David


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. s.


Carr, Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, R. C.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leburn, W. G.
Speir, R. M.


Corfield, F. V.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Dance, J. C. C.
Longden, Gilbert
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Deedes, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McAdden, S. J.
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Maodonald, Sir Peter
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, E. D. L.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thorneycroft, Ht. Hon. P.


Duthie, Sir William
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fell, A.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Forrest, G.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wall, Patrick


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gammans, Lady
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Webster, David


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, R. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gough, C. F. H.
Medlicott, Sir Frank



Gower, H. R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Clause 8.—(SUPPLEMENTARY.)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 11, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "(which", and to insert:
Section one hundred and ninety-two of the Highways Act, 1959".
This is a purely drafting Amendment consequential on the repeal of the New Streets Act, 1951, by the enactment of the Highways Act, 1959.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION ETC. OF COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end to insert:
Provided that at least one-half in number of those members shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the councils of any counties and county districts comprising a substantial part of the area of any new town and from among persons having experience of local government or the administration of new towns.
In the First Schedule we come to what must commonly be accepted as an important question, for whatever different views we may have about the whole policy of the Bill—as we have, for there is no question about our disagreement with at any rate Part I of the Bill—we have had that discussion and have now reached the stage where it is agreed by the House that the Commission shall be established. I am certain, however, that everybody on both sides of the House must recognise that there is a real danger of the Commission becoming a body remote from the problems of the new towns.
The new town is the home of people. It is the place of work, the centre of industries. It means a tremendous lot to the people who live and work in the place. By its very character the Commission is removed from each new town. It is the object of the Bill that to some extent the Commission should be slightly removed from day-to-day contact. That may be a bad thing. I think it is, but I am not arguing the point at the moment.
I am arguing that it is most important to ensure that, once the Commission is set up, it should be a body which is recognised as knowing something about each individual town, understanding its problems, and understanding particularly the problems of the various people concerned

in its administration. Therefore, we suggest—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is a constructive suggestion, and in no sense an attempt to wreck the Commission—that half of the members should be people brought in from outside who have no particular local contacts. The Minister is free to pick them from wherever he likes.
The other half should be people whom the Minister appoints after he has consulted a variety of bodies. He should first consult the county council, because what the Commission does very much affects its work. The Commission's management, manipulation and sale of land, its development of industry and so on create problems in the country, problems in education, welfare, even fire prevention, and the manifold services in which the county is involved. One is sometimes a little inclined to forget the interest which county councils have in new towns. One tends to think very much in terms of the county district of the area, but the county council has a very great interest in what happens in new towns and has some very difficult problems of competing priorities to settle.
We suggest that the consultations should embrace the county councils and also the county district councils, normally boroughs or urban districts. We say that the council concerned should cover a substantial part of the area, because there are some places where the area of the new town is not co-terminus with the area of the county district, which is probably unfortunate, but it is a fact. One must be reasonable and say that the county district which has a substantial say in the new town should be consulted.
Therefore, the first duty upon the Minister is to have these consultations. That does not mean nomination in the sense that he must accept any person suggested to him by one of the councils. It means that he must get from the councils their suggestions.
The second duty that the Minister has is to appoint members from among persons having experience of local government or the administration of new towns. I am certain that the Minister intends—he has said so—to draw on the resources of the corporations very much in choosing the people to serve on the Commission. He ought also to drawn upon people


who have experience of local government, because the local government side will be developing in the new towns. As the new towns mature, the part played by local government will increase and it will become more and more important that there should be on the Commission persons who look at the problems from the local government point of view.
I should like to make a historical contribution based on my experience at Hemel Hempstead. What struck me very much in that exceedingly happy corporation, of which I was for a short time a member, was that when we had differences of opinion, as we naturally did from time to time, they were never based on differences of party view. They were nearly always differences between members of the board who had local government experience, whether they were Conservatives or Socialists, and members of the board who had had business experience. It was fascinating to see how the different points of view had to be brought together and blended before a final decision was reached. Therefore, I believe that it is very important indeed that the Commission should have members with both types of experience.
I do not suppose there is much argument about that and I imagine that the Minister would accept that without very much debate, but it is important that it should be made clear in the proviso that this duty exists. One of the most disquieting things about the Commission as it appears at present is that there is no indication of the kind of person who will be appointed. This is, after all, a very important matter for the new towns. They will be handed over to the Commission, which will be a State body. We are not at the moment discussing the working of the local management committees; that will come later. What we are concerned about is the Commission, which is bound to be a centralised State body. We ought to know, and Parliament ought to make clear, the kind of people who will be appointed. It ought not to be left completely at large.
The danger is that the Commission will become a body which is not regarded by the new towns as having knowledge and understanding of and sympathy with their problems. After all, it will deal with the lives of the people who live in the towns, and its

decisions will have tremendous influence on the happiness and prosperity of the town. Therefore, it is reasonable that a substantial part of the Commission should be chosen after consultation with the elected bodies in the new towns and that it should consist of people who have special knowledge of the problems of new towns and the general problems of local government, which are not necessarily those of the new towns. There are problems to which an important contribution may be made by a member of the Commission who has had experience outside the new towns, possibly of some other type of development, such as big housing estates, but may not have lived in a new town. We want to be sure that at least half the members of the Commission are persons who will be recognised by the local inhabitants as having a special knowledge and experience of their problems.
There is a sop to the Minister. He has laid emphasis on keeping the Commission removed from the day-to-day difficulties of the new towns, which I think is a rather bad idea. However, the Minister can, if he wishes, appoint the other half of the members directly.
We think that our proposal makes a valuable contribution to the Bill because it will make clear to the persons concerned how the Commission is to be constituted. It will be a guarantee to the inhabitants that some respect will be paid to local democracy. That will make it easier for them to accept the Commission. Therefore, the Government ought to welcome and accept our proposal.

Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
We seek to ensure that the Commission shall be a body whose members have not only financial experience but experience of local government and housing on a large scale. During our discussions in Committee, the Minister said:
It is not simply to be a financial operator, not by any means. It has to consider every aspect—social, industrial, everything concerned with the property for which for the time being it will be responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c 623.]
8.30 p.m.
With that definition of the general functions in mind, I should have thought that it would be essential for the Minister


to agree to have on the Commission people with local experience of the running of new towns, people with local government experience, people with trade union experience and people with cooperative experience, some of which is very large business in these days. Unless the Minister does that, while the Commission may theoretically depend on the reports which it receives from the local committees which, apparently, it will have in each of the new town areas to carry out certain functions—which I confess are not very clear to me at the moment—it will be a remote distant body.
If we are not to lose the wonderful impetus which the new town idea has created in this country, we must have on the Commission the kind of men and women referred to in the Amendment. Incidentally, there are many good men and women who have put years of work into the building up of these new towns. As some of us saw only a few weeks ago, they have done it very successfully.
It would be a pity to lose the value of the experience and knowledge which these men and women have acquired not only of the actual job of building a new town from scratch but of the problems of local government administration, and, what is equally important in these new towns, the problem of housing management.
It is gradually being accepted that the management of a housing estate is a skilled job. Unless the Commission has on it somebody who is not only skilled but enthusiastic about housing management, it will lose a great deal of the value which it otherwise might have, much as I dislike the idea of a Commission such as the Bill lays down.
We are saddled with the Bill and we want to make it as effective as we can. It may turn out all right. We might have a Minister who would have sense enough to appoint among the fifteen members people with local government experience and with co-operative, trade union and housing management experience in new towns. We are, however, not sure, and from the experience that some of us have had since 1945 of the appointment of people to both national and local committees with State responsibilities, one gets a bit doubtful.
I want us, if we can, to make sure that when the Commission is appointed it will

consist of people such as our Amendment envisages who have much local government and administrative experience in new towns. Unless we do that, we run the risk of the Commission being a purely financial organisation. I must confess that that is what most of us thought it was meant to be. It is true that it will not have large surpluses to handle for a few years, but as more new towns are completed surpluses running into many millions of pounds will become available.
We would like to see a great deal of the surplus money being used to improve the amenities and comforts of the new towns, but we have lost on that. We do not want to see the scheme run so that the only consideration which the Commission running the show from London has is a financial one. We are alarmed at the idea that one of the chief functions of the Commission is to increase the value of the land and not to provide good comfortable homes in perfect surroundings with work for people who badly need it. I hope that the Government will be a little more sympathetic about the composition of the Commission than they were in Committee.
The Minister admitted the necessity for at least half the Commission consisting of people who have proved themselves to have knowledge of local government, of the management of new towns, of the varied problems which housing management throws up in any case and of the problems which the political management of a town, whether it be large or small, inevitably throws up.
The new towns will become larger than was envisaged when they were started. The present tendency in new towns seems to be for them to have more children than there are in the normal towns, so there will be a big increase in population bringing greater problems. These cannot be dealt with successfully by a far away, remote Commission that does not know from personal experience the problems thrown up by these towns and which will only be concerned with the financial aspects of the matter.
I urge the Minister to be a little more forthcoming and to agree that these assets of at least £300 million to £400 million shall be managed by people of


knowledge and experience of the problems of large towns and housing estates. New towns can thus become the lovely pulsating centres of population that we all want to see.

Mr. Shinwell: The Minister of Housing and Local Government is either having something to eat or is endeavouring to escape our deliberations. Desirous of being generous, I suspect that the reason for his absence is the former. No one will begrudge the right hon. Gentleman some nourishment, particularly after the vicious attacks that we have made on him, which so far have elicited no satisfactory response.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has returned to the Chamber.

Mr. Shinwell: I at once deny the soft impeachment.
I dislike this conception of a Commission and rejected it absolutely and emphatically. However, the House decided against us—it was a mistake—and we cannot go over the ground again. That is unfortunate, because quite a number of new arguments have occurred to me in support of our original proposals. I will keep them in cold storage for use on a future occasion. We must accept the Commission for what it is worth.
If we have to accept the Commission, let us get one that is satisfactory, intelligent and human. Oh, that is very important. There is a great danger that we may have a Commission consisting of lawyers, or financiers, who will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, or will exercise financial knowledge, in order to keep a Light rein on the activities of the local committees that are to be set up. There is a very valid reason for the acceptance of the proposal in the Amendment that half the number of the proposed Commission should consist of persons with local-authority knowledge and capable of administering what, after all, is a local authority of a grandiose character.
There is a very valid reason for this. It is that the Commission responsible for the administration and general activities associated with the new towns

under this Bill must seek the cooperation of the local authorities. Without the co-operation of the local authorities there is very great danger of serious trouble ensuing. It may well be that the kind of Commission that is envisaged by the Minister, with his somewhat peculiar ideas on these matters and his Tory idiosyncracies with which we are familiar, may appoint a Commission which will disregard the views of local authorities unless they happen to be Tory local authorities. That would be a horse of a different colour. and what a horse!
If there is one reason—there are several, of course—why the Minister should accept this proposition it is that co-operation is an essential sine qua non of effective co-operation and administration of the new towns. I should like to commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I say that in no condescending fashion. I commend his speech on this subject in contrast to the speeches we have heard from the Front Bench opposite. Comparisons, as we know, are odious.
When he was making the proposition on this subject, my hon. Friend said that we shall have to deal with committees later, but unfortunately we cannot as there is no Amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with committees. Why that is so I do not know. Perhaps it has been ruled out for some reason. Perhaps it is out of order, or perhaps my colleagues in the Standing Committee thought it inadvisable to press for it. I cannot say, but the committees are very important and they are to be appointed by the Commission with the approval of the Minister. What the Commission will recommend will be accepted by the Minister—that is, in the personnel of the local committees—but if on the main Commission there are people who are not acquainted with the activities of local authorities, who are not persona grata with local authorities and are unaware of the desires of local authorities, the persons appointed to these local committees will be those who are very likely to come into conflict with the local authorities of the area.
I have had some controversy with the Minister on an aspect of this subject. As hon. Members are aware, I represent a constituency in which there is the town


of Peterlee. As I said earlier it is a very fine town. It could be better if we had the right amenities and if the Minister were a little more forthcoming, but we cannot help that. We have to put up with this Minister so long as this Government lasts. The sooner we get rid of him the better. I say that with no offence at all. That is the desire of many of us. I should not be surprised to find that it is the desire of some on the benches opposite. Very often we are anxious to put a knife into each other's backs. That is not peculiar even to the Tory Party.
8.45 p.m.
I have had some trouble with the Minister. I understood from what the Minister said on Second Reading that he was anxious to enter into consultation with local authorities about the personnel on these committees and on the Commission itself. It is therefore surprising to observe his two recent appointments on the Peterlee Development Board, because they are from outside the area. He asked for the views of the Easington Rural District Council, which is the second largest rural district council in the country. The council informed him that it would like the local authority to be associated in some way with the new town corporation. Was that too much to ask? After all, the local authority is responsible for sewerage, for the collection of rates, for the collection of dustbins and for a variety of other activities associated with local government. In effect it is the democratic handmaiden of the new town. That is recognised by the Minister.
Having heard what the council said about it one would have expected him to say, "What you say is right. I will appoint two persons to the development corporation who are in some way associated with the local authority or who are at any rate recognised by the local authority as desirable nominees." He said nothing of the sort, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why. I insist on an answer. Why not? I represent the constituency. That is why I am here. Ministers must offer us explanations of their conduct. Why has the Minister rejected the local authority's advice? We ought to know.
The Minister is pitchforking into the new town corporation a lady from Dar-

lington, which is quite a pleasant town, but we have good people in our own area, highly intelligent people. In addition, he is importing another businessman from Newcastle. We have businessmen in our community.
Why must he do that sort of thing? Why is he playing ducks and drakes with us in this fashion? We do not intend to stand for that. Because of his conduct in this matter I am afraid that he will do much the same when appointing the Commission and that the Commission may do precisely the same when it carries out its duty of appointing the local committee. If that is democracy, it is not the kind of democracy in which I believe.
We must start with first things first. We must get the Commission right. The personnel of the Commission, the calibre of the members and the qualifications of the members of the Commission, are equally important with the question of finance associated with the activities of new towns. We can have the utmost correctness in the financial information in respect of the new towns, we can have excellent plans and blue-prints, but unless we have the right personnel, with the right ideas about their responsibilities and activities, all the financial finesse and all the fine blue-prints will come to very little. I think that I have the House with me on that at any rate.
It is therefore very important to have the right people. The first thing must be to get the right kind of Commission, and we shall not do that unless it is associated directly with people connected with the local authority. If that is obtained, we need not bother so much about what will happen in regard to the Committees. If the right people are appointed to the Commission, the right people will be appointed to the Committees. Then there will be effective co-operation between the Commission, the Committees and local authorities, and there will be a chance of this concept working out well. I hope that we shall get that.
I do not want to threaten the Minister, but undoubtedly there is a good deal of power in the hands of the Opposition. A good deal of power is vested in Members of Parliament. They are in touch with local authorities. I do not speak for myself only, but for Members of


Parliament generally. They have some influence with local authorities and people in the localities. We can make things difficult for the corporations.
What has been the position in connection with the Peterlee Corporation? I have had to come to its assistance many times. Many times I have had to make representations to the Ministry in a concealed fashion. Many times I have had to work behind the scenes, as has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater). I do not know about my other hon. Friends who represent new towns, but I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and I have had to do.
Local authorities are our friends. There is an overwhelming Labour majority on my own local authority. If we sought to influence a local authority in the sphere of non-co-operation with a development corporation, that would have a detrimental effect, to say the very least, on the activities of that body and would render no service to the community or the local authority. We do not want that to happen, but the Minister, by his activities, is forcing us in the direction of non-co-operation. I do not know what the Easington Rural District Council may do. In view of the Minister's attitude, the council might say, "To blazes with the corporation. It can run its own affairs." The council can use better language than that. If it cannot, I can supplement it, if necessary. That is a possibility. It is no idle talk. I know what people are saying. We have had lots of trouble at Peterlee. The Parliamentary Secretary knows what is happening at South Hetton, Haswell, Thornley and Wheatley Hill, where the people have slogans all over the place saying, "Down with Peterlee. Have nothing to do with Peterlee". The slogans warn the local Member of Parliament that his majority might be reduced if he does not take it up with the Minister. I see the notices when I go round the district. The idea of having my majority reduced fills me with apprehension. That is the sort of thing which is happening in the constituency, and it is not idle talk.
Therefore, I beg the Minister to pay some attention to these matters and to realise that co-operation between local authorities and the Commission and its committees is essential. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can do something to

invoke it and, having invoked it, to maintain it by the correct machinery, he is in for a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Ede: I apologise to non-Privy Councillors for being the second Privy Councillor in succession to speak. I associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). In the first two years of this century I devoted a great deal of time to the study of a book by Ebenezer Howard entitled Cities of Tomorrow, which was the beginning of the garden city idea and the idea of the new town to be designed from the beginning to provide an adequate home, both for the worker and the family; where people could carry on their ordinary avocations in close proximity to their homes.
In those far-off days I occasionally lectured on the advantages of this proposal. Of course, we were supposed to be complete visionaries—nothing would ever come like this. At that time one or two enlightened industrialists, such as the Cadbury's, and W. H. Lever at Port Sunlight, were actually carrying out our ideas to some extent, although the chief disadvantage of what they did was that they were really promoting one new industry per new town, which did not give much varied opportunity to the diverse skills that might be expected to be found in such an area.
I regret that this nation-wide Commission is to be appointed. As far as I can see from the discretion and the powers given to it, it will have far too great an influence over the individual new towns which come within its purview. I could have hoped that the ideas with which we started would remain; that each of these garden cities or new towns would have an individuality of its own, with a sense of its own corporate, individual existence, and managed under our usual local government orders.
It is highly to be desired that, as soon as possible, these new towns, no matter what their size, should not be under a national Commission. After all, the history of the last 130 years from 1834 is not one that makes one favourable to the idea of national commissions managing great social experiments of this kind—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this Amendment is about the composition of the Commission, and nothing else. He is dealing with rather wider issues.

Mr. Ede: I accept your suggestion that I may be going into rather too great detail, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am trying to build up the case for what is left of that idea in this Amendment. We are now trying to save something from what I regard as the wreckage of our hopes. I want the Commission to be as representative as possible of the people who will be living under its control. My wish would be that consultation should take place with the county and county district councils which have the new towns within their areas, and that, in addition, the Minister should appoint a number of people who have intimate knowledge of local government affairs and, in particular, of the local government problems that confront the new areas that have been developed under the Act.
I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) had to say about the importance of consulting the county councils—which, in these days, are responsible for education and educational development for all sections of the community in a new town—so that there shall be appropriate opportunities for the further education of people who have left school and are becoming identified as workers with particular skilled industry, who ought to receive the encouragement and assistance that they can get from an enlightened policy of further education.
9.0 p.m.
I hope there will be frequent consultations between this Commission and the county councils with a view to providing appropriate further education institutes in these areas. It will be a very great pity if the ideas with which these areas are developed do not take into account fully the aspirations of the people who are going to live in them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, there is no Amendment dealing with committees, but one must hope that the Minister, in his appointments to the Commission, will have regard to the aspirations in this Amendment to encourage the Commission, when it

appoints the committees, to carry out the same ideas that have been advocated by my right hon. Friend and myself.
The position of the new towns in the future development of England will, I hope, influence the housing estates of the big cities. One can already see signs that this is happening, and I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be accepted—if not in the words in which it is phrased, at least in the same spirit—by the Minister when he deals with the appointment of this Commission, whose appointment I am bound to say I view with great disappointment. I hope however, that the Minister will make the best of what he has decided shall be a bad job.

Mr. Slater: I am delighted to think that my right hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and for South Shields (Mr. Ede) have been able to express their views on how the Commission should be set up and from where appointments should come. We all know that as the development corporations have been set up in the past, unity of purpose has not been the prime object in the development of the new towns.
It is true to say, as I reminded the Minister in the Standing Committee, that we had a great amount of disunity in Durham county when people were being appointed to the new town corporations. These appointments had no affinity whatsoever with the county, nor even with local government administration. I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington say that when a new appointment to the Peterlee Corporation was proposed the person concerned came from Darlington. On my corporation there are two persons who reside in the Darlington borough area. Durham County Council, as well as the Easington rural area, had reason to object at the time when these corporations were set up, in view of their composition.
I am convinced that if we are to have that progress which is desirable and in the interests of the people resident in the new towns, and if the new towns are to be provided in the interests of the nation, the people to serve on such a Commission should have experience of local government administration. I would remind the House that the excuse of the Minister in turning down the Amendments in the


Standing Committee was that if these appointments were made in the manner in which we think they ought to be made, these people would not know where their first loyalty really lay. That is a form of argument which does not carry very much weight. They are the people who have had local government experience.
I cannot understand why the Minister should not accept the argument which has been put time and time again about the kind of representation there should be on the Commission which is to be set up. Once the Bill becomes an Act, our people in the new towns and the county administrative areas will have little to say because they will not have the power or opportunity to express their views. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the application which has been made and take into consideration the views which have been expressed by my right hon. Friends who have had greater experience in these matters than many of us present in the Chamber now.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I join with my hon. and right hon. Friends in urging the Minister to accept the pleas which have been made to him. I urge him this time with, I hope, some possibility of success. It is quite clear that, in the Minister's own interests, if he wishes the Bill to succeed, he must accept the idea which is behind the Amendment. If he goes ahead and appoints the sort of Commission which has been conjured up to us by some of the arguments we have had from the Front Bench today, the working of the Bill will be hopelessly wrecked.
We regard it as a bad Bill. We tried, as best we could, to amend it, and we have not succeeded to any great extent. But, if it is to work at all, it will be absolutely vital that the Commission itself should be very strongly representative of the local authority people in the areas in which the new towns are situated. If the Commission is dominated by the kind of chartered accountants which the Minister seemed to have in mind when he was discussing some of the financial implications of the Bill, or if it is dominated by representatives of the Tory Institute of Directors and that kind of person, it will be impossible for the new towns to have any sort of progressive development.
The Minister really must recognise that his experience with the development corporations and the local authorities around them has not been particularly happy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) have given instances. Relations between the Harlow Development Corporation and the local authority there have been a good deal worse than they need have been simply because the Minister has steadfastly refused to appoint to that development corporation people from the local authorities. Various people can now put up names to the Minister from which he can select members of the development corporation. As far as I know, he has, so far, completely refused to appoint to that development corporation anybody who comes from the local authority which democratically administers exactly the same area as the development corporation itself. The Bill will not work unless there is adequate local authority representation on the Commission.
The Amendment is extremely cautiously and moderately worded. It does not ask that local authorities should send their own people to the Commission. It does not even ask that the Minister should appoint people suggested by the local authorities. It merely asks that the Minister shall select from people who have local authority experience. More than that, it allows the Minister to make up his half of the Commission not only from people who have local authority experience but from people who have experience of serving on the existing new town development corporations. It is a moderately worded Amendment.
If the Minister wants his own Bill to succeed, he must ensure that, in making up his Commission, at least half of it is composed of people who have genuine roots in the local communities, from people who live in the new towns. If the right atmosphere of confidence is to be built up between people living in the new towns and those responsible for administering new towns, either at the level of local committees or at the level of the Commission, this must be done. It has been difficult enough to operate the present development corporation system smoothly. It will be infinitely more


difficult with this remote Whitehall Commission. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make sure that the composition of the Commission is democratically representative, he will run into a very great deal of trouble.

Mr. Bevins: We have been privileged to hear a number of very interesting speeches, including two from members of the Privy Council, one of whom was slightly frustrated by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) ranged, I thought, fairly widely, and in the course of what he had to say—a great deal of it, so far as I could judge, not connected with the Amendment—he asked my right hon. Friend, in fact, demanded to know of my right hon. Friend, an answer to a question which, I am sure, with great respect to him, is in no way connected with the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Did you detect that I was out of order while you were in the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did detect certain digressions, but I allowed the right hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like a simple, direct, and fair answer to this question: was I out of order while I was speaking?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman made certain digressions and was out of order on certain occasions.

Mr. Bevins: Not wishing to he ungracious to the right hon. Gentleman, I was going on to give him a very short answer to the question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend. He objected to the fact that my right hon. Friend had seemingly rejected certain advice about the membership of the Peterlee Corporation. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, I think last week, my right hon. Friend is still considering the representations of the Easington Rural District Council, and that is why he has not yet replied to them.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the important thing here is to get the right kind of Commission and to get the right people to serve upon

it. I also agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that the Commission should include members with local government experience and people with experience of the working of the new towns. My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that certain members of the Commission will possess qualifications and experience of that kind. I repeat that at this Box tonight. However, my right hon. Friend does not agree that more than half the membership of the Commission should be appointed in the way suggested by the Amendment, and I will explain why in a moment.
Before I do so, I should like to dismiss with all the emphasis of which I am capable the idea propounded by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that the Commission would be a financial body concerned only with financial considerations. That is wholly untrue, as I shall presently explain. Nor is it true to suggest, as has been suggested in the debate, that the Commission will be a remote and bureaucratic body without any real links with the localities in which the new towns are situated.
The main point before the House is, what sort of a Commission do we want? I agree that if it were right in principle that the Commission should be largely composed of people nominated by local authorities or appointed by my right hon. Friend as the Amendment suggests, after consultation with local authorities, then it would be right to examine the best way of securing that result. The Amendment suggests one way, which is a substantial advance on what was suggested in Standing Committee.
9.15 p.m.
In the Government's view, however, it would be quite wrong that local government should have such a large say in the appointment of members. The development corporations were local bodies. The Commission is a national body with responsibilities in the twelve new towns throughout the country. For that reason, the connections of the Commission cannot, and should not, be as local as those of the development corporations which the Commission will replace.
The first and most important task of the Commission is to act as a management agency. Therefore, its day-to-day contacts with the local authorities will


not need to be as close as the contacts enjoyed by the development corporations. I agree, however, that one could make a good case for requiring the Minister to consult local authorities before appointing members to the development corporations, as the 1946 Act provided. But there certainly is not, in our view, the same case for giving new town local authorities a say in the membership of the national Commission.
During our discussion, there were several references to the possible remoteness of the Commission. Two right hon. Members opposite said that there were no Amendments about the composition of the Committees. That is not quite true. There are two Amendments on that very point which we shall shortly reach. I emphasise, however, that local authorities will be very interested, and rightly so, in some aspects of the Commission's work. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has written into the Bill the provision for the establishment of local committees; and in the membership of those local committees, the local authorities will certainly have a say.
When a not dissimiliar Amendment was being discussed in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend went out of his way to say that he had it in mind that a member of the Commission itself should normally be the chairman of the local committee, with a view to creating the closest co-operation between the local people and the Commission. As I indicated earlier, my right hon. Friend hopes and expects to include on the Commission members whose experience of local government and new towns will enable them to play a valuable part on the Commission.
Experience in local government and in new towns alone, however, is not the main requirement for a Commission of this nature. As has been well said, in a few years' time the Commission will be responsible to my right hon. Friend for assets valued at at least £400 million. Therefore, we clearly must have on the Commission men with a sound and thorough grasp of financial matters. It is not only a question of the right management policy for looking after industrial areas and factories. It is a question also of using the most able and most influential people we can get to serve on the Commission in order to

attract new industry to the new towns to create the necessary employment for the younger generation as it comes along.
In all these things, we must have the best financial people, the people who are best qualified to take a prominent part in estate management, not only housing management, but industrial and commercial management also. Having said that, however, let no Member of the House think that my right hon. Friend is insensitive to the human side of the problems that arise in the new towns. That is not so. What he wants to do is to appoint a Commission—and he himself will take the responsibility for these appointments—which is best equipped to discharge its duty under the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: There is nothing to stop the Minister, if he so wishes, putting on the Commission any financier he can think of from Mr. Clore upwards or downwards. At the moment, we are dealing with only half of the Commission. As I said in moving the Amendment, the other half can be used for including precisely the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) mentioned, in whom the Minister was most interested, namely, the financiers who were to regard this as a profit-making, financial undertaking.
Our plea is that to balance those gentlemen, there should be on the Commission people who have local government experience, who carry the confidence of the local authorities in the areas and who know the workings of the new towns. The Minister, in fact, said that was a good idea. If it is a good idea, then it should be put in the Bill. If it is put in the Bill, we shall remove a great deal of fear and suspicion which people will have.
If it is clearly and specifically stated in the Bill that the Minister will consult local authorities and put people of experience on the Commission, there will be more confidence in the Commission, and in the Bill, and more chance of the scheme working. If, with characteristic obstinacy, the Government say that they will not make this concession—although they are going to do it, they do not want to have it in writing—the effect will be to cause trouble in the areas because everyone will be afraid that the Commission will consist entirely of people coming from the city and running this as a big take-over undertaking.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 212.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[9.22 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Ainsley, J. W.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Popplewell, E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, P.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holmes, Horace
Price, Phillps (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell Denis (All Saints)
Pursey, Cmdr, H.


Baird, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Boyd, T. C.
Janner, B.
Skeffington, A. M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. ACreech (Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Snow, J. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Burton, Miss F. E.
Kenyon, C.
Sparks, J. A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Caliaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steele, T.


Carmichael, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Champion, A. J.
Ledger, R. J.
Stonehouse, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Clunie, J.
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Cronin, J. D.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mcinnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thornton, E.


Diamond, John
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, D. M.
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Moss, R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.



Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, N.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Aitken, W. T.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Robert


Arbuthnot, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Chichester-Clark, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Black, Sir Cyril
Cole, Norman


Atkins, H. E.
Body, R. F.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cooke, Robert


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Corfield, F. V.


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cunningham, Knox


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dance, J. C. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Burden, F. F. A.
de Ferranti, Basil




Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, I. J.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pott, H. P.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kirk, P. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Duthie, Sir William
Lambton, Viscount
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, W. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Errol, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ramsden, J. E.


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Forrest, G.
Longden, Gilbert
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G, D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, R. S.


Glover, D.
Macdonald Sir Peter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Sharples, R. C.


Goodhart, Philip
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Shepherd, William


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gower, H. R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Speir, R. M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McMaster, Stanley
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Green, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimond, J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Temple, John M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maidon)
Mathew, R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mawby, R. L.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medllctt, Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wade, D. W.


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wall, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Noble, Michael (Argyle)
Webster, David


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, Richard
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Howard, John (Test)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Page, R. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Woollam, John Victor


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Partridge, E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Iremonger T. L.
Peel, W. J.



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, J, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Colonel J. H, Harrison and


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, after the first "the", to insert "allocation and".

Mr. Speaker: I think that this and the next Amendment can be taken together.

Mr. Mitchison: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The object of the two Amendments is to deal with a question which I hope will not occupy the House for long but which we regard as of some importance.
The Commission is a nominated body without any restrictions on nomination. It is to have committees which will be local committees in the various new towns or possibly in a pair of new towns. They will consist of people nominated

after consultation with the district councils. Those committees may have powers delegated to them. They must have delegated to them the power of house management or arrangements about house management. They may have delegated to them other matters, but there is no provision in the Bill obliging anything but the one matter of house management.
It seems to us that this matter ought to be a local one, but that it cannot be separated from various other matters which equally in our view should be local ones. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the local powers are exercised under the general direction of the Commission. Therefore, as I see it, there is no risk in transferring quite a considerable power by way of delegation.
We propose to extend to the committees by delegation in this way the question of not only managing houses but also of managing premises for commercial and industrial use and, further, to give them power to deal not merely with questions of management but also with questions of allocation of land as between these residential, commercial and industrial purposes. That is the short effect of the Amendments. They appear to us to be matters which must be considered together and are predominantly local matters.
We take the view that if the arrangements in the Bill are to work at all, the extent of delegation to the committees should be as large as possible. If anything that can properly and adequately be dealt with by the committees is left to a nominated central Commission sitting in London, we believe it will make the operation of the Bill more difficult, less democratic, more inhuman, likely to meet with more opposition from the inhabitants of the new towns and from the general public. For those reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that these things must go together and that he will accept the suggestion that they should be made an obligatory question of delegation to the committees, subject always to the general direction of the central commission.

Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for speaking with such brevity. The idea behind the Amendments, as he explained, is that the Commission should be compelled to delegate to one local committee the responsibility not only for the management of houses, as is provided for in the Schedule, but for the management of its industrial and commerical properties. Although the Schedule obliges the Commission to set up a committee to deal with the housing in each town, it is nevertheless free to set up other committees for other purposes if it wants to do so. Therefore, with the exception of housing, the Commission has a free hand to delegate or not to delegate.
However, my right hon. Friend has already expressed himself as being in favour of delegation where it is suitable,

and at an earlier stage of our proceedings he said:
I am anxious that we should not restrict the scope of delegation, and if the Bill has created an impression that the Government are out for maximum centralisation and minimum decentralisation, then I am anxious to correct any such feeling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1959; c. 640–1.]
As members of the Standing Committee will recall, my right hon. Friend agreed to re-examine the wording of the Schedule so that it could be clear beyond all doubt that we should welcome the idea of delegation where it was suitable, and I am advised that the wording of the Schedule unaltered certainly allows that to be done.
It is my responsibility to advise the House against accepting the Amendment. I will, very briefly, give the reasons. First, what might suit one new town might well not suit another, and the Commission ought to have a free hand to work out the best arrangements it can in the light of both local circumstances and experience.
I should have thought that it was very doubtful whether a body of this sort would in any case want to give a single committee this crop of responsibilities. After all, housing management in itself is a very big job in many local authority areas, and, indeed, in many new towns. For example, at Harlow there will be more than 20,000 houses. Very often it is the case—this is the important consideration—that those who are best qualified to deal with housing management are not very knowledgeable about the management of industrial property, and the converse is very often true, as is well known by hon. Members with experience of local government.
I agree that local authority housing committees very often have under their wing the management of shops on local authority housing estates, but I should have thought from my limited experience that it was almost invariable in local government that the management of industrial and commercial properties as such was the responsibility of a separate committee. We take the view that it would be wrong to lump houses, shops, commercial premises and industrial premises under the management of one committee for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Mitchison: The short answer to the last observation is that there is nothing whatever in the Amendment which obliges anything of the sort. It leaves it entirely at large to have any number of committees, any arrangements about sub-committees and any arrangements about common membership or the like. We stand by the simple proposition that in a new town one cannot expect to separate housing from questions of the job and the office and the allocation of land as between these various purposes. We think that those matters ought to be delegated and that there ought to be a provision in the Bill to that effect.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am astonished at the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for rejecting the Amendment. We are not asking for something that changes between one town and another. The hon. Gentleman said that the short answer was that what suited one town would not suit another.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has some experience of local government. Does he lay down that what would suit one town would not suit another in the acceptance of housing tenders? Does he not lay down that all tenders must have his approval? There are many towns which would gladly take refuge in his statement and say, "It

would not suit us but it may suit the town further along the railway line." Surely it is a principle that allocation as well as management matters.

Allocation is very important. The pioneer of new towns, Sir Ebenezer Howard, laid down as the sine qua non ownership and control of land. We are asking for allocation. Anyone who has worked in local government for any length of time knows the pressure that is brought to bear on members of local authorities in regard to allocation. Industrial and commercial local authorities in particular are subject to pressure in regard to the allocation of industrial and commercial patches of land.

There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said that weakens our Amendment. The Amendment is based on sound principles, on standard practice, on all dealings in land, in dwellings, and even in commercial undertakings up and down the length and breadth of the country. I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept an important Amendment which surely is in line with the whole conception of new town policy.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 202.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[9.43 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Ainsley, J. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davles, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Diamond, John
Hunter, A. E.


Baird, J
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Benson, Sir George
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Janner, B.


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. I.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Bowles, F. G.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Boyd, T. C.
Foot, D. M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Forman, J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gibson, C. W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lawson, G. M.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Ledger, R. J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hale, Leslie
Lewis, Arthur


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lindgren, G. S.


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Logan, D. G.


Champion, A. J
Hannan, W.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hayman, F. H.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Clunie, J.
Harbison, Miss M.
MacColl, J. E.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
MacDermot, Niall


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Holmes, Horace
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)




Mahon, Simon
Randall, H. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Redhead, E. C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thornton, E.


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, J.


Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mitchiton, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington, A. M.
Warbey, W. N.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Moss, R.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, D.


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willey, Frederick


Owen, W. J.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Paton, John
Stonehouse, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh E.)


Pentland, N.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Winterbottom, Richard


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.



Price, Phillps (Gloucestershire, W.)
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Forrest, G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, Lady
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Armstrong, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Ashton, H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Atkins, H. E.
Glover, D.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Goodhart, Philip
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Balniel, Lord
Gough, C. F. H.
McMaster, Stanley


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Batsford, Brian
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Green, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimond, J.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Bingham, R. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mathew, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Body, R. F.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Henderson-Stewart, sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Burden, F. F. A.
Holt, A. F.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornby, R. P.
Nugent, Richard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Partridge, E.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Peel, W. J.


Cooke, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Corfleld, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pott, H. P.


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Powell, J. Enoch


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Deedes, W. F.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kirk. P. M.
Ramsden, J. E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Rawlinson, Peter


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Leburn, W. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


du cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, Sir William
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, R. C.







Shepherd, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Patrick


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Webster, David


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Storey, S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Taylor, William (Bradford N,)
Wade, D. W.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As my right hon. Friend said to the House on Second Reading, the ultimate test of this Bill will be whether it
so shapes policy that the new towns will flourish and that the thousands of people living in them will be able to enjoy the sort of life which we all wish them to have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 951.]
The Government believe they will succeed in this.
We take the view that there are three stages in the growth of the new towns, first the development which has been in progress since 1947, next the consolidation period as the towns settle down and complete their expansion by natural growth, and thirdly, the settlement of ultimate ownership. The first part of this Bill concerns itself solely with the second stage, that is to say, consolidation. It in no way pretends to deal with the third stage when the towns have reached maturity, because that stage is still quite a long way off and we had better take our fences when we come to them.
I was very interested to read the recent Press statement on the future of the new towns issued by the National Executive Committee of the Labour party because, although it came to a different conclusion from the Government as to what ought to happen in the middle phase of the new towns, it did at least recognise that there are special and peculiar problems in the middle phase of development, that is when the influx of population from outside has more or less come to an end but when populations are still rising fairly rapidly.
I shall say a brief word or two about the main provisions of this Bill. Part I provides for the establishment of a Commission in the new towns
for the purpose of taking over, holding, managing and turning to account the property previously vested in the development corporation.

Our general objective as regards the Commission is that it should be a good landlord. It should be businesslike, but its commercial sense should at all times be tempered by the knowledge that its decisions and its policies are liable to affect the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people who will come to live and work in the new towns. Clearly a great deal will depend on the care and judgment with which members of the Commission are selected and also on the extent to which the Commission succeeds in decentralising much of its business to the right kind of local committees. What my right hon. Friend wants to secure are men and women with wide experience of estate management in its broadest sense, people with experience of large-scale financial responsibilities, people who understand housing management and who see both its human and its financial aspects, and perhaps most important of all, people who are genuinely friendly to the conception of the new towns.
As for decentralisation, my right hon. Friend certainly does not want the Commission to be a distant or formal or bureaucratic body, and that is why we are giving the Commission power to set up local committees and obliging it to establish what amounts to a housing committee after consultation with the local council.
Part II of the Bill deals mainly with financial advances to development corporations. Clause 10 increases the limit of advances by £100 million to £400 million. These advances will largely be used to finance the house and factory building which is in progress in the new towns and which will continue there for many years, because many of these towns have not yet reached even the half-way stage.
We are, however, rather beyond the house-cum-industry stage in the new towns. Town centres have been commenced and in certain cases are well


advanced. At Stevenage there is an all-pedestrian shopping centre. Social amenities are also being developed. My right hon. Friend recently opened a new community centre at Hemel Hempstead which had been built by the borough council with large-scale financial help from the development corporation. Similar centres are on the way at Harlow and Basildon. At Harlow a start has been made on the central sports area, and the corporation is doing a great deal of preliminary work. At Welwyn Garden City the stadium is making progress. These financial advances will be devoted not only to the task of building more houses and providing more shops and industry but also to assisting local authorities and other agencies in the provision of amenities.
We on the Government side of the House believe that this is a worthwhile Bill and its purpose finds unanimous backing on this side of the House. In the country the Measure has been generally welcomed as providing a wise and realistic approach to the mid-term problems of the new towns.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: Continuing what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, "but in the new towns this Bill has been greeted with distrust, disapproval and dislike."
We should be voting against the Third Reading this evening if the Bill consisted solely of Part I. We indicated on Second Reading that it is to Part I, which deals with the Commission and similar matters, that we take objection. To the provision of more money for the new towns we take no objection whatever, and in those circumstances we do not propose to divide the House tonight against the Third Reading, since the Bill comprises the second part as well as the first.
I desire, however, to say one or two words. The circumstances in which the Bill is introduced are these: there are twelve new towns in England and Wales. they were started by the Labour Government and there has been no addition to them under any Tory Government. Into those twelve new towns have gone technicians and staffs very conscious of the importance of what they are doing and of the value of the social experiment to which they are contributing. They went there, as did the people who moved to

the new towns, with the confidence which they had at the time that the new towns would become democratic institutions and would be handed over to the local authorities in whose areas they are situated.
That was the view of the whole House, including the Conservative Party, then in Opposition, expressed in Section 15 of the 1946 Act, which is being repealed by the Bill. That matter is important, because throughout the long debates we have had on the Bill no one has ever adduced any real reason why Section 15 in principle should not remain effective, or indicated any substantial change between the position as foreseen in 1946 and the position as seen and foreseen today.
Accordingly, we start with the fact that this change is a complete reversal of attitude in a matter affecting the lives and beliefs of the people of these new towns and those who have been working for them. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regret that.
We look, then, at the nature of the change which the Bill makes. We are prepared to recognise that there may well be a period of consolidation, and we should not have taken the same objection to the Bill if it had been a transitory Measure directed to that period, provided that the original handing over to the local authorities were to remain in it. That has been denied us. We have been given no indication—there is no indication in the Bill—of how long the state of affairs set up by it will continue. We have been given no indication that the new towns are to be ultimately handed over to the local authorities. Knowing the ways of this Government and of the party opposite, I do not put it past them to hand them over as a good bargain to private enterprise, if that happens to suit them at the time. A Government who have advanced the millions they have, on the terms they have, to private industry recently, and who are prepared to treat those advances in a far more generous spirit than the advances they have made for the purposes of the new towns, are certainly not to be trusted as to their ultimate disposal.
New towns are, at present, enterprises run by development corporations having an office on the spot, having their undertaking in the new town, often with people


closely connected with the locality, working in conjunction with the local authority. They are, as their function of development is fulfilled, to disappear. I do not complain of that. That was always intended.
What will come in their place? In their place, the whole undertaking, every new town in England and Wales, is to be handed over one after another to a single Commission nominated by the Minister with absolutely no control over the people he nominates. The Minister having nominated the Commission, the Commission is to be, we are told—these are the highest aspirations of the Government—a good landlord. In the very next sentence, the Parliamentary Secretary said that on its decisions, namely, on the decisions of the good landlord, depend the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people. The Tory Party is very much the same, whether it is talking about housing or new towns. It is its ideal, its supreme philosophy, that there should be a good landlord and within the control of "the good landlord" should be the happiness of hundreds of thousands of people.
What has happened to democracy? Are not the hundreds of thousands of people to have any elected authorities which are allowed to have control of these new towns? Are not the hundreds of thousands of people to have any voice in their own destinies, or are they to depend solely on one single "good landlord"? What is "the good landlord"? He is a State corporation, in a sense in which we in the Labour Party have never dared or wished to set up a State corporation, completely uncontrolled as to the membership, completely in the hands, not merely of the Minister, but of the Treasury, and set up for purposes which seem to me in the long run to be far more financial than social. A good landlord indeed!
The Tory Party is destroying some democratic institutions, for that is what these new towns would have become as soon as they passed into the hands of the local authorities. The Tory Party is destroying democratic institutions and nationalising a great deal of property under the harshest bureaucratic autocracy that the Tory Party or anybody else has ever succeeded in inventing.
That is the final effect of the Bill. What about all this philosophy of theirs? I thought that they did not like nationalisation. I thought that they did not like bureaucratic autocracy. I even thought that they did not like centralisation. Have they ever produced a Bill that has so many instances of everything to which they object as this particular effort? And they leave us with this thing—the thing that the Minister left on the doorstep—not merely for the moment but for an indefinite period.
Just as those who went to work in the new towns were told that this was only a temporary job, so, now, we are being told that this is only a temporary job, but no limit is set to its operation. For an indefinite period, I repeat, we are condemned by an ideological Tory Party to centralised, unrepresentative autocracy, and to the nationalisation of democratic institutions. Even worse than that, we certainly take one step towards the destruction of the social ideal and social adventure that these new towns, as originally conceived, represented in the minds, at that time, not merely of the Labour Party but of those who then occupied these benches.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: I do not want to spend: many minutes giving this Bill my best wishes as it goes on its way, but I would indeed like to do that. After the superlatives used by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in its condemnation, I want to adopt a calmer note and to say that, completely contrary to his assertions, this Bill is welcomed not only by opinion at large but in the new towns themselves. Further, the people in the new towns are heartily glad that the Bill has been brought in and pressed through, because it will protect them from being made shuttlecocks in the party battles.
The Bill provides that the new Commission, which will take over the assets created by the development corporations when the phase of fast immigration comes to an end, will be under Parliamentary control, and its actions will be debatable in this House. Therefore, we are not in any way setting up an autocracy such as the hon. and learned Gentleman described. I have not found that people at all object to the ideal set out in the Measure that the Commission


should be a good landlord. On the contrary, I have found it welcomed.
Little, if anything has been said during the Committee and Report stages about Clause 12, which provides that the development corporations as they continue their work now can make contributions towards the amenities of the towns in the same way that the Commission will be empowered to do when it takes over. It has often been said that the provision of amenities has lagged behind the development of other sides of the new towns—housing, factories, shops and the like.
It has been said that not only is that so but it has had an ill effect on the building of a community spirit, because the structures and places in which to build it have not been there. However that may be, all the new towns, so far as I am aware—and certainly those that I know—have succeeded in developing the community spirit, and the people living there are proud to develop it. But it is certainly our duty in Parliament to ensure that further amenities are provided, because we do not want towns which are merely places to live and work in. We want towns in which people can develop to the very full their personalities and interests. I have no doubt that as the new towns settle down into the third and final phase in the years to come, it will be seen that they have been helped to become a success by the provisions proposed by my right hon. Friend.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: As far as has been explained at all, we have heard at every stage of this Bill that one of the important reasons why the assets of the new towns are being vested in a central Commission is that otherwise we should be facing the danger of having all those assets vested in what the Minister has indicated again and again he regards as a dangerous monopoly. Concerned as he has been with the fact that, as a result of the development of the new towns, it is possible for local authorities to own, govern and control the assets of these new towns, he has made it abundantly clear that, apart from Treasury reasons, it is primarily because of this that he wishes to vest these assets in this bureaucratic centralised body in London.
However, if one looks at the realities and makes an empirical approach one finds that in many cases, as in the new town that I represent, there is no possibility of any of the hazards and dangers about which he speaks occurring. This is so not only because of the present situation but because of the manner in which is has developed. In the new town of Cwmbran which I represent, there is a diversity of ownership of industrial, commercial and residential properties. There we have 22 factories inside the designated area with 3 million square feet, and not a foot of them belongs to the Cwmbran Development Corporation. On the periphery of the designated area there are six other factories with 1¼ million square feet and not a foot belongs to the Cwmbran Development Corporation. There is certainly no danger in Cwmbran of the industrial undertakings being vested in a local authority monopoly. There is practically no factory footage vested in the development corporation.
Take the position of commercial undertakings and shops. There are scores of shops within the designated area which belong to private landlords or are owner occupied. There is no danger of a commercial undertaking becoming monopolised by one group in Cwmbran.
Let us take the housing situation. We have within the new town 2,700 houses which are privately owned. Of those 1,000 are let and 1,700 are owner occupied. We have all the diversity that we can possibly expect to have in such an area. If that is not enough, we have already seen that the development corporation itself makes ample provision by allowing large acreages to go, where literally hundreds of plots are available, for private individuals to erect their houses, and indeed it is now engaged in giving considerable acreages to private speculative development.
Apart from all the privately-owned houses, we have in existence a conscious plan for development to see that there will be owner-occupied houses within the designated area. The picture presenting itself is that we have every type of house ownership, including a housing association, which has 150 houses. If, as was once claimed, an empirical approach has been adopted by the Government and if, indeed, there have been some radical changes during


the years between 1946 and today which justify this reversal of policy, I cannot see them in Cwmbran, and neither can my constituents.
If one considers why it is that there is this hostility towards a publicly-owned body, through a local authority, having more and more assets, one realises that the reason is that the Minister has a nostalgia for the nineteenth century. He has a nostalgia for what were private enterprise, urban cities, those he calls normal cities—he used the terms many times—cities where, as we well know, private enterprise gave debased living conditions to the majority of the population and where, in fact, it was only State and local authority intervention that made it possible for the majority of people to live decent lives.
This Bill is a reactionary Bill in the full sense of that term. The Minister does not explain what is ultimately to happen to the assets. He does not say what will happen ultimately because, at the back of his mind, he is turning towards the nineteenth-century conception of a city, a city in which there is a large measure of private enterprise control of the bigger undertakings.
This conception brings with it not only difficult and unfortunate ideological trends but it brings with it a host of other problems also. For example, there will be serious complications in housing administration. Today, when I wish to examine a housing question in Cwmbran, I have to visit two sets of offices, the offices of the Cwmbran Development Corporation and the offices of the local authority. One at the moment controls 3,500 houses and the other controls 1,700. There are two sets of offices, two bodies side by side. I go into one and then into the other. We have there the same type of houses being administered, some on one side of the street and some on the other. Some, indeed, have different rents, but, by and large, it is exactly the same type of property occupied by the same sort of people. Perhaps, almost inevitably in the transitional phase, we have housing administration in duplicate. What is to happen under the Bill? Housing will be administered in London, by the local committee which, we learned in Committee, will have its own offices locally,

and also there will be the local authority offices. This is, indeed, a triumph for Whitehall. We shall have housing administration in triplicate. With it will come all manner of serious problems, problems, for instance, in the social services.
Cwmbran Development Corporation, like most development corporations, I suppose, does not regard its rent collectors merely as rent collectors; it recognises that they have a rôle as social workers to play. What is to happen when we have a centralised Commission? With the houses not being vested in the local authority, will there not be further lack of co-ordination in the social work which is so essential? Will the rent collectors, if they are acting as social workers, have to come to some understanding or liaison with the local authorities? The condemnation recently expressed about lack of co-ordination in our social services will be exacerbated so long as we have this enclave of a strange nationalised concern inside the designated area.
Beyond that, there will inevitably be administrative friction betwen the local authority and the Commission. We are already experiencing this in Cwmbran. Whereas, hitherto, the local authority has been ready to make land available which otherwise it would wish to husband for its own purposes, now, of course, the local authority digs in. It believes that it has no future interest in the land and it has no interest in the houses which may be put on it. Already, even before the Bill has become an Act, there is a tug-of-war going on. What we are seeing in Cwmbran is what is likely to happen all along the line. Administrative difficulties will arise because there will be considered to be by people on the urban district council a lack of coincidence of interest between the development corporation and the local authority.
Apart from administrative difficulties, I have already seen in the consequences of the Bill the psychological estrangement which is likely to result as a consequence of having this centralised nominated body to deal with houses within Cwmbran. Anyone who has had experience of housing management knows full well that it is more than a question of collecting rent. Anyone who


has been on an estates committee in a city knows full well that the handling and management of a large estate requires a great deal of tact and there should be constant and ever-regular channels of communication between tenant and landlord. Once one begins to interfere with those lines of communication, once it is felt that there is no communication between tenant and landlord, troubles begin.
What is even more likely to happen apart from the regular type of trouble which comes as a result of this type of structure is that there will be a feeling of lack of involvement. Most of the residents in Cwmbran come from nearby villages and townships and from places where they have a deep and profound sense, as we have in Wales, of locality and community. When they come to Cwmbran they want as far and as speedily as they can to become part of estrangement. What is being given to them is the knowledge that their assets will be controlled by a body 160 miles away. This will deal with their assets, houses, homes and amenities. Nothing is more likely to cause a feeling of estrangement than that knowledge.
We are constantly complaining that people lack responsibility, and that there is a certain malaise within the community where people will not shoulder what we regard as their own individual responsibility. The Bill creates conditions under which people begin to contract out, where the people governing them are remote. anonymous, unknown to them, whom they have no contact at all. This is a socially reactionary Bill because it isolates the individual still further instead of giving to him a greater sense of responsibility and community values.
Finally, we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) talk of the Minister reverting to his previous position rather than facing up to the responsibilities which he has as Minister for Housing. The right hon. Gentleman is also Minister for Welsh Affairs. There was a time when there was a demand throughout the Principality for more devolution and there was a very deeply felt emotional and intellectual attitude that we needed to have more control in Wales. We regard the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as a

dusty answer to that clamour. The Minister said that there should be time in order to see how he would be able to influence, in the Cabinet, the affairs of Wales and to look after the community interests of Wales. Today, Wales as well as Cwmbran will judge the Minister and will ask "Is this how we have devolution to Welsh authorities?" They will say that instead of vesting assets of the Welsh people in the local authorities of Wales what he has done is to snatch them away to London and has taken them from where they truly belong.
We in Wales regard the Bill as one more failure in our national aspirations. What the Government have done is to reduce Cwmbran to Colonial status, to see that it does not have its full and proper responsibilities. This is a Bill which we can only regard with considerable dismay.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Gough: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will forgive me if I do not enter into an England versus Wales match. As the representative of the first town that will come within the orbit of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, I hope that at this late hour the House will allow me to say a few words.
I have been through all the stages of the Bill and I do not think that there is any hon. Member, on either side, who would say that it has not been thoroughly thrashed out. We have certainly had our differences of view, but my right hon. Friend is to be highly commended on giving every hon. Member, on both sides, every opportunity to put his point of view.
During this period, it has often seemed to me that it would have been a marvellous thing if these debates had taken place in another legislature within the Commonwealth. It might have been a wonderful thing if the legislators at Canberra were debating a New Towns Bill of this nature, so that we could transplant a whole community from this country to Australia, where people are very much needed. I cannot pursue that line much further, but I wanted to say it, because in the context of the Bill one of the greatest dangers to the new towns and to whatever enactments we have is that they will fail in that they do not


reduce the population of the great cities from which the people of the new towns come.
I was immensely surprised by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Undoubtedly, he has not been backward in opposing the Government. I was surprised that he was not taking the fight to the death. I did not think a great deal of the hon. and learned Member's reasons. He began by saying that we were voting a certain amount of money and then he came in with a full-blooded attack which from the first was based utterly on fallacy.
The hon. and learned Member said that the people in the new towns looked upon the Bill with distrust and disapproval. I shall quote only my own new town of Crawley. In the recent local government elections, the people there had a magnificent opportunity to give their verdict on the Bill. It was not the fault of the hon. and learned Member's friends down there for not plugging it. It was the one issue before the electorate and there was a 4 per cent. swing in our favour. The result in other towns might be even more startling.
It was not, therefore, up to the normal high standards that the hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that he should have said that the Bill was greeted with distrust and approval. Nothing of the sort. I reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Bill, as an Act, really makes its impact in Crawley, there will be a further satisfactory swing in our direction.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East), Wait and see.

Mr. Gough: The next point upon which the hon. and learned Member dilated was that of the good landlord. That is precisely what is in the minds of the ordinary men and women in Crawley. They do not believe at this stage that their local authority, as at present constituted, with the very small amount of experience that it has, will be a good landlord. They have a good deal of reason for this view, as I shall explain. After our recent local government elections, 60 per cent. of the electorate of Crawley voted for the friends of the hon. and learned Member. Forty per cent. voted for people who look upon political issues the same way as I do.

Mr. Willis: Call them Tories.

Mr. Gough: The majority of Socialists on the committees have hogged every single appointment there is. Forty per cent. of the electorate of Crawley are not represented on any hospital, school or any other of the various committees which normally have representation from minority views. In other words, they have done a "Lewisham". Will people who do that sort of thing be good landlords? It is not unreasonable for the people of Crawley at this moment to say that it would be far wiser to follow the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister in the Bill. That line is that there must still be a period of development. That is all we say. In Crawley we have passed, or are nearly passing, the first phase. We are now coming to the second. We in Crawley believe, and I think that it is much more generally believed than the hon. and learned Member for Kettering supposes, that it is still a wise thing to have these tremendous national investments in the hands of what will be the finest professional body to look after them.
It is on these lines that I believe the Bill will be a great success. It will take another step forward in the progress of one of the most exciting developments that we have made since the war—and in saying that I give the fullest credit to hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I should like to cap what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough). We find the Bill even more popular in the new town of Basildon. That is one of the answers to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he says that the new towns disapprove of the Bill.
Before the Bill was introduced there was a Socialist council in Basildon. Reports of the debates in Standing Committee on the Bill were widely circulated before our local election in May. I did my best to circulate the views of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and others who spoke against the Bill. I am glad to say that, thanks very largely to them, we captured control of that Labour council and now one new


town has a strongly entrenched Conservative majority after an election in which the main issue was this Bill.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government for having introduced the Bill. I support it because it is a popular Bill in Basildon new town. I am certain that there is no one in Basildon who has thought carefully about it who does not agree with its principle. It should go through.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry that my humble efforts in Standing Committee had such a disastrous electoral effect. If the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) had been able to circulate his own speeches they probably would have had a comparable effect, but unfortunately, as far as I can remember, there was none.

Mr. Body: There were six.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member's contributions to our discussions, though not altogether absent, were perhaps not particularly profound or relevant. Therefore, I am not surprised that he was able to avoid the embarrassment of circulating them. We are told that in Crawley 60 per cent. of the people, after examining these issues and having them debated and put before them, supported our side of the House. I should have thought that was a reasonable proportion of support to obtain.

Mr. Gough: It was 64 per cent. before, now it is 60 per cent.

Mr. MacColl: I think that 60 per cent. is a reasonable proportion to have.

Mr. Mitchison: We shall be content with that at the General Election.

Mr. MacColl: I was about to remark that if we got that, as I think we probably will get 60 per cent. at the next General Election, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government will be redundant. I get some satisfaction from thinking that he will not qualify for pension for loss of office.
I do not want to detain the House with an exhaustive analysis of the Bill. Our position on it on this side of the House is perfectly clear.
We believe that there is no case for having this middle stage of the Commission interposed between the ultimate ownership of the local authorities and the work of the corporations. We believe that the corporations and the local authorities can easily blend one into the other and have a smooth transfer by degrees as the work of the corporations finishes and the local councils grow in responsibility. We do not believe that there is any case for having this middle stage. We believe that it is a dangerous thing to have because it will divorce the management of the houses from the people and lead to profit and the exploitation of the land values predominant in the development of the new towns. Therefore, we are against this part of the Bill.
However, we are not voting against the Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, simply because we want more money for new towns and we want more new towns and it would be rather silly to vote against giving what little money is proposed when we want more.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: There is little that I need or can add to the admirable speech with which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary moved the Third Reading of the Bill, except to express my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), Horsham (Mr. Gough) and Billericay (Mr. Body) for their contributions and for the close and sympathetic understanding of the new towns in their constituencies which has been shown throughout our debates.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin has said in rebutting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the Bill had met with distrust, disapproval and dislike throughout the new towns. If there is any justification for those words, it can only be within small groups of party-minded people in the new towns, because, frankly, the people of the new towns as a whole are closely interested in one thing and one thing only about the future of the new towns, and that is that they shall be well administered. They do not greatly mind by whom they are administered provided that the administration is good, and the reason


for the Bill is that the Government believe that in the next stage good administration can be given to the new towns better through the Bill than by handing them over to the local authorities here and now or by any other agency that might be suggested. As to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), if anybody can turn the new town of Cwmbran into an unhappy place, he will.
I regard the new towns as one of the boldest and most important experiments which this country has carried through in the last 15 years. They are not nearly so well known within our own island as they are by visitors from overseas except for those who have the experience in living in or near them, but the Government are proud indeed to have been able during the past seven or eight years to make their contribution to their welfare, and so long as a Conservative Government remain in power that certainly will continue.
I invite the attention of the House to one curiosity. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering in his first words on the Second Reading of the Bill said:
This is a scandalous Bill.
He said later in his speech:
It is a complete denial of democracy …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 857–69.]
Now he says he will not divide the House against it. Can it be that the Government's arguments have persuaded him to see reason in the matter, or is it that his troops have gone home so that he is left powerless?

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Second Reading we divided not against the Bill but on a reasoned Amendment?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I think that we ought to have a few more words from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland before we say farewell to this Bill It has been exceedingly difficult, of course, to raise any question at all on the Bill thanks to the uncooperative attitude of the Government. In fact, it was not until the final stages in Committee that we actually discovered what the Bill did. We then learned that it was intended to fill a gap in the 1906 Act.
Under the 1906 Act it was possible for the Secretary of State to prescribe functions other than those mentioned in the Bill to be performed by the trustees of the art galleries. But, unfortunately, the 1906 Act never made any provision for enabling Parliament to vote money with which to carry out those functions. Therefore, for 53 years the Government have had power to do certain things, or at least to instruct the trustees to carry out certain functions, but have not had the means of providing the money for those functions.
I am bound to say that it does not speak very highly of what the Government have tried to do in the realm of art that they should have required 53 years to discover that they had no money with which to carry out the functions of the 1906 Act—no power to get the money with which to carry out the functions of the Act. It took 53 years to discover that. Obviously, therefore, the Government have not been very concerned about encouraging art in Scotland. That is the first point I wish to make.
Having discovered five minutes before the end of the Committee proceedings what the Bill actually did, we then in the last few minutes of the sitting tried to get some answers to a few questions

during the final speech of the Joint Under-Secretary. We asked him whether, in fact, the Secretary of State would be willing to consider some of the many suggestions made during the Second Reading debate and would give effect to them. The hon. Gentleman did not reply to that question.
One of the Amendments which we had down on the Notice Paper in Committee, and which was not in order, sought to provide
suitable additional buildings in Edinburgh or elsewhere for the wider display of national art treasures for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
That seemed to be a reasonable thing to request.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It may have been very reasonable, but it cannot be debated on Third Reading.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the Bill actually provides the Government with the money with which to do these things. It enables the Secretary of State to obtain the money from the House with which to carry out all the functions mentioned in the original Act. I submit, therefore, that we are in order to ask the Joint Under-Secretary what functions he intends to carry out when once this Bill is passed. Is that not in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood it was something which had not been accepted.

Mr. Willis: I was quoting one of the suggestions which have been made. We should like to know whether or not the Secretary of State is now prepared to consider this suggestion when he obtains the Bill. We also made the proposal that arrangements should be made for the wider distribution of pictures throughout Scotland and asked that the Secretary of State should give instructions to the Trustees about that. This Bill provides means whereby he can obtain money to do that. I think that is a correct interpretation of what the Bill does. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State will now consider this suggestion. What will he do in addition to the one proposal which has been made to give powers to the Trustees to look after the proposed art


gallery at Inverleith House? Will the Secretary of State look at the suggestions made during Second Reading and put some of the better ones into effect?
I should have thought it important that the Secretary of State should treat this matter seriously. We have had a number of reports on this question. Last week the Gulbenkian Committee reported that an effort should be made to spread our activities throughout the provinces. That Committee was looking at the subject as a whole and suggested how it could be done. As we pointed out during Second Reading, the same ought to be done for Scotland. We have had this Report since Second Reading, and it reinforces our argument. Is the Secretary of State prepared to do that when he has these powers?
Finally, I ask a question that we have asked several times. When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the provision of a proper gallery for modern art in Scotland? Under this Bill he can now obtain the necessary money from Parliament for the purposes of running such a gallery. Apparently he could not do so before. The Ministry of Works could have built a beautiful art gallery for Scotland but the Secretary of State would not have had money with which to do anything about it and it has taken fifty-three years to discover that position. The desire is there and, if the Secretary of State would show the same desire to get something done, we should be happier. May we have an indication of when the Government intend to proceed with this project? It was considered to be one of the urgent necessities of the art world twenty-five years ago. We are still fobbed off with second-best and are given no indication of when the Government intend to proceed with the provision of a proper Scottish gallery of modern art. Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell us something about this, because in the final speech in Committee he said:
This building up process will provide a collection of pictures to display in the Gallery of Modern Art to be built on the Queen Street site, if that is the site ultimately chosen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd June, 1959; c. 22.]
Have the Government had second thoughts about the announcement made

eight years ago? What are their present views? When are we to have the gallery? Will it be at least twenty-five years? We have never had answers to our questions on the subject. The Bill at least provides the means by which the gallery can be run. Surely the Minister can at least tell us what the Government have in view. How long are we to use Inverleith House, which the hon. Member himself admitted was only a temporary measure? How temporary?
Many people in Scotland would like to know this because we want this Scottish gallery of modern art quickly. At this time, eight years after the announcement was made about the Queen Street site, the Government ought to be able to tell us something more definite than we have been told during the previous proceedings on the Bill. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will answer some of the questions which I have asked him.

10.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that it was not until five minutes before the Committee stage ended that he learned what the Bill does. Had he done me the honour of listening to what I said on Second Reading he would have heard me say that when we were considering the Order which would have to be laid prescribing the management of the new gallery as a function of the trustees.
we noticed that the Section of the 1906 Act which provides for expenditure out of voted moneys does not cover expenditure on any new functions which may be conferred on the trustees; it covers only the expenditure on the management of the galleries then under their control, that is, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery".
Those provisions had been perfectly adequate for the fifty-three years during which the 1906 Act had existed. I went on to say:
In any event the defect must be remedied before we can proceed further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 4th June. 1959; c. 4.]
The sole purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for moneys provided by Parliament to be used to pay not only for the management of the National Gallery of Scotland and the National Portrait Gallery, which can be done under


the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, but also to meet expenditure incurred toy the board of trustees in connection with
the performance of such other functions as are conferred on them by or under this Act.
In the course of the proceedings in Committee it has been made clear that the new power conferred is of a general character and is not limited to any particular project. I gather that the hon. Member is still not satisfied that the Bill gives adequate financial powers to match the other provisions of the 1906 Act. I can assure him that it does.
He asked me several questions. The first concerned the functions which the Secretary of State proposed to give to the trustees. The genesis of the Bill was that the Secretary of State proposed to add to the functions of the trustees the management of a gallery of modern art at Inverleith House. This is the genesis of the Bill and what we have considered so far, but naturally the Secretary of State will continue to watch carefully to see whether there are any further administrative gaps—we trust that there will be no further legislative gaps—to be found, and no doubt if there are it will be possible for the Secretary of State if necessary to make an order to add further functions to the trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had had second thoughts about the Queen Street site. I thought I made it quite clear in Committee that the Government had not altered the proposal announced in 1951 by the late Mr. Hector McNeil, but that the Queen Street site is not at present available—

Mr. Willis: Does the Secretary of State intend to consider the many suggestions made during the Second Reading for the better display of pictures throughout Scotland? Are those arguments considered good? After all, they have since been reinforced by a very powerful Committee. Will the Secretary of State give the trustees the powers necessary to ensure that the pictures are more widely displayed?

Mr. Macpherson: If it is necessary to give the trustees any further powers to enable pictures to be exhibited, those powers can be made available, but, as

I explained earlier, we do not think that it is necessary. Since before the 1906 Act it has been customary to arrange for pictures belonging to the National Gallery and to the National Portrait Gallery to be shown elsewhere.
To sum up, I would just say that the financial provisions now made are wide enough to cover any functions whatever, whether conferred directly by the Act or prescribed under the Act, and whatever may be thought of the purposes that the Secretary of State may have prescribed at the present time there is no doubt at all that the Bill will give us the necessary legislative powers to meet any conceivable demand.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

10.56 p.m.

The Chairman: This is a Consolidation Bill. If the Committee agrees, I shall put all the Clauses together.

Clauses 1 to 201 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us why we are consolidating the licensing laws of Scotland? He will be well aware that there is much feeling in Scotland that they ought to be amended. I understand that I am not entitled now to discuss the various amendments that might be made to the Scottish licensing laws, but I think that I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman if he realises that the mere act of consolidating legislation gives the impression that Parliament is satisfied with these laws, yet there cannot be a single hon. Member from any part of Scotland who believes that these licensing


laws are all right as they are, or who would wish his constituents to think that we in Parliament are satisfied with them and are willing that they should be consolidated. Indeed, the Secretary of State had allowed the impression to gain currency in Scotland that he was anxious that there should be an independent inquiry—perhaps by a Royal Commission—into our licensing laws, and that he was well aware of their present shortcomings.
I know that very soon I should be outside the rules of order were I to discuss the shortcomings of our licensing laws, particularly in regard to Sunday drinking. But the present law is a scandal and none of us, so far as I am aware, knows of any good reason why we should be consolidating our licensing laws at the present time. I should have thought we would all be perfectly happy not to pass this Bill at all but to have this Bill withdrawn so that we might proceed as soon as may be to have a look at many of the abuses which take place under the law, which are quite legal but socially undesirable.
Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what is the reason for consolidating now? Would it not have been far better had he not troubled to engage a lot of highly skilled people to go through all the licensing laws throughout the years and to consolidate them in this Measure with a good many minor amendments and adjustments as are provided for under the consolidation Act of 1949? Would it not have been far better if he had got his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set in motion the kind of inquiry which the people of Scotland are anxious to have, so that our licensing laws might be examined impartially and dispassionately and so that we might have some recommendations from an impartial committee as to the kind of amendments that we should make after we had done that? We might very well have consolidated all that was good in our licensing laws.

11.2 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) object at any time to the consolidation of the law, but when we get the law of licensing such as it is in Scotland, covering some 17 enactments and going back as far as 1871, one would have thought it was high time that the law of licensing was consolidated.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not my hon. Friend's point rather different? We recognise that the law is going to be consolidated, but we are also informed that the Secretary of State is going to start to amend it shortly. At least, that is the understanding. Would it not be a sensible thing, if he is going to amend it after an inquiry, that the consolidation should be held up until we decide what will be the final picture of the licensing laws?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think it would be in order for me to discuss any future changes which might be made in the existing law.
I was going to say that the consolidation of the law has three advantages. The first is that it is helpful to the licensing courts. The second is that it is useful to all those who have to refer to the law in the course of their business to have it in one easily accessible form, even though it does have 201 Clauses. The third is that the fact that the law will now be set out in one Measure will certainly not make it more difficult to make any changes which it may be thought necessary to contemplate at any time in the future.
From all these points of view, the consolidation of the law will be of considerable value. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

ROADS (PARKING SCHEMES)

11.4 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 6th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
The effect of this Order is to extend to a number of provincial cities and towns the powers in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to promote parking schemes. At present these powers are enjoyed only by Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London. If Parliament approves this Order, the ten local authorities listed in Article 2 of the Order will then be free to propose parking schemes if they wish, but their proposals will still have to go through the procedure with which we are all already familiar in London, as set out in the Third Schedule of the 1956 Act. That is to say, each scheme will still have to be officially published and brought to the notice of neighbouring residents and traders. Objections may be lodged and, if necessary, the Minister can order a public inquiry to be held, appointing an independent inspector for the purpose, who will report to him on the merits of a particular scheme before he decides whether to approve it and lay it before Parliament.
In effect, this Order does no more than put the specified local authorities mentioned in the Order in the same position as the Metropolitan boroughs, which can already promote parking meter schemes. For each of the ten cities or towns mentioned in the Order, we have called for reports from our divisional road engineers as to the general nature of the traffic congestion and so on and whether it appeared that there was a case for a controlled parking scheme.
The reports in each case have satisfied us that such a case does exist. Indeed, some of the cities concerned applied some months ago for power to promote schemes but we withheld giving power until we were satisfied that the first scheme—that in the city of Westminster—had shown its merits. I think hon. Members will agree that it has shown itself to be a successful measure

in the right place, benefiting traffic movement and road safety and providing short-term parking facilities, and that most people have come to the conclusion that meter schemes are a real benefit when applied in the right circumstances. It is significant also that the second scheme, for St. Marylebone, was recently passed by the House. We felt, therefore, that the time had come to allow provincial cities to promote similar schemes. Already we are receiving applications from other towns; and from time to time we shall come along with other Orders to give other towns the chance to promote these schemes.
In these circumstances, I commend this Order to the House.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that in considering the Motion before the House we have to decide whether this power, giving the Minister the right to designate parking places in these ten towns, should be given in view of the fact that an experiment has been going on for parking on the highway in London.
The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us that the scheme has been a success in London and, presumably, because it is a success and because there is a parking problem in these ten other towns, the Minister should have the power to enable local authorities to submit schemes for the approval of the House. The hon. Gentleman has said that, by and large, the experiment has been interesting and instructive and mainly successful. I think that the House would agree; but there are some qualifications.
The scheme has been a qualified success, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to what extent the lessons learned in London will be applied in the provinces. To what extent, when the Minister considers the Orders placed before him for approval, can he influence these provincial cities in applying the lessons which have been learned, or should have been learned, in London? Can he use his influence, through consultation, persuasion and the like, to ensure that certain requirements which I consider necessary to the success of parking schemes, which it is proposed to extend to these areas, are met?
Those requirements include the need that schemes in all these cities should be


sufficiently comprehensive. In London, no doubt, parking meters had to be started on a small scale to see how they worked, but it quickly became evident that as the initial scheme in Westminster was so limited, parking congestion became so great in the neighbouring areas that the scheme needed to be extended; and that is being done.
I therefore ask the Minister, when he designates the parking schemes in the provinces, if we grant him the Order, whether he will be able to ensure that the schemes which are put up to him and which he embraces in orders will be sufficiently comprehensive that the congestion in neighbouring areas is not so great that the gain in the small areas where parking meters are installed is outweighed by the added congestion outside.
The second requirement is that there must be not only enforcement of the regulations concerning the parking meters, but enforcement of parking regulations in the neighbouring areas. It would be pointless to grant the Minister this power tonight unless he were convinced that the enforcement of parking regulations will be full and effective. That is something which clearly, here in London, has not accompanied the parking-meter schemes. Unfortunately, in the cities that we are considering, particularly Birmingham, the parking and no-waiting regulations are not observed and are not enforced any more than they are in London. If parking-meter schemes do not make their contribution in this way, I doubt whether charging for parking on the highway gives any effective easement of the parking problem.
Therefore, when it is decided to extend parking-meter schemes to these towns, will there first be consultation with the authorities, the watch committees and the chief constables, about how they will effectively enforce the law and see that the motorist observes it? If there is added congestion in areas adjacent to parking schemes, enforcement becomes more difficult. Once that happens, motorists ignore the regulations and it is difficult to know how to ensure that the law will be obeyed. I therefore suggest that before powers are given to these cities, at least there should be full and effective consultation with responsible authorities to ensure that schemes will be sufficiently comprehensive that

by their observance and enforcement they will be fully effective.
The third and, perhaps, most important requirement on which we must be satisfied before agreeing to extend parking schemes of this nature is that there must be provision for off-street parking. When the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee drew up its survey on car parking a few years ago and recommended that parking meters should be installed in certain areas of London, one of the requirements put forward by the Committee was that there must be provision for off-street parking at the same time as parking meters were installed.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember full well that when debates took place on the 1956 Act, under which this Order is being made, assurances were given that as soon as the parking meter schemes were in operation and the money was being raised from the fees charged that money would be devoted, as it has to be under the Act, to the provision of off-street parking. I hope that if this Order is approved the Minister will see that these city authorities do consider in advance what off-street parking can be provided. That would be a lesson learned from London. As far as I am aware, since the schemes have come into effect in London there has not been a single additional off-street car space provided by Westminster City Council. We know that there is a scheme now for a garage, but as far as the Council is concerned, after nine months no extra space has been provided.
Under parking meter schemes the amount of car space on the highways is drastically reduced—by between one-third and one-half. Consequently, unless there is provision off the streets there is increased congestion and the motorist is put to added and unnecessary inconvenience. It may well be that as these schemes are extended it will be found that off-street parking cannot be provided without subsidies from the local authorities and, possibly, from the central Government. That may be worth while to keep traffic, which is the life-blood of any city, flowing.
So it is the duty of the Minister, if these powers are granted, to see that provision is made at the outset for a


right and reasonable balance between parking meters and off-street parking. Vehicles displaced by these schemes must be provided for elsewhere to the extent that this is physically possible, even if ultimately money for the purpose has to be provided by the authorities concerned, in addition to money raised from the meters.
Parking meter schemes are justified only if, overall, the parking problem is eased, and it cannot be eased unless there is provision for off-street parking and for the enforcement and observance of parking regulations generally. That means that the parking regulations have got to be accepted as reasonable by the motorist so that there is co-operation between the motorist and the police.
As we were being asked to extend to the Minister powers to enable him to designate parking schemes which provide for charging on the highway, I would ask if he is fully satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to alternative methods and that he is sure it is preferable to proceed with this rather permanent form of charging on the highway through meters, on which capital has to be spent. He is aware that a major alternative is the Paris blue disc scheme, which I shall not discuss tonight. But has full consideration been given to experimenting with such a scheme in at least one of these cities? The blue disc scheme, whereby a disc is put in the windscreen of the car by the motorist and the time is designated on the clock, is working reasonably well in Paris, although there are a great number of offences committed and a large number of people are necessary to enforce the scheme.

Mr. Speaker: This Order allows only for the provision of parking places, for payment, on the streets. We cannot discuss all the possible alternatives.

Mr. Davies: I shall not pursue this. I can see the point. The blue discs, of course, can be sold, but that is not part of this scheme. I thought that it would be in order to refer to alternatives before we decided on one method, but I certainly abide by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not challenge it or pursue the matter, but the Minister might be able to say what consideration

has been given to possible alternatives before the decision was taken to lay this Order.
Whilst in principle the extension of these parking schemes to the major cities of England can be accepted, it does not of itself constitute a solution to the parking problem. These designated parking places may help in the solution, but the solution depends upon a great number of other factors. As I have indicated, the main factor is that parking regulations as a whole shall be reasonable and enforceable and therefore observed, and that there shall be not only an easement of traffic flow by altering the flow on the highways but provision for the vehicles displaced from those highways.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: As a matter of interest, arising from what the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has just said, I was told only this morning by a Cornish constituent that he had made inuiries about the provision of additional off-street parking in the City of Westminster by private enterprise. He had inquired from Westminster City Council whether, if he provided such off-street parking it was possible for him to obtain assistance towards the cost of doing so from the parking meter scheme. Although I understand that the Council had no definite proposal at the moment, he was told that that was the ultimate intention. Therefore, it is premature to criticise the parking meter scheme for not providing additional off-street parking space.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Member say what additional off-street parking has been provided since the meter scheme came into operation?

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing off-street parking but parking meters.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, but, with respect, the Road Traffic Act, 1956, provided that meters should produce money from which a council should subsidise off-street parking. This Order extends the provision of parking meters to the cities mentioned, including Bristol and Derby, for example. I understood the hon. Member for Enfield, East to criticise that because it was no good extending the Order to apply to those cities when in Westminster,


where the Act operated, no additional parking was provided. I therefore mentioned the instance brought to my notice this morning where it was proposed that additional parking should be provided in Westminster with the financial help of the parking meters.
The inference is that if the Order were extended to Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and other cities, additional off-street parking would be provided in those places also. The hon. Member for Enfield, East will have seen the ring road in Birmingham and will know that off-street parking will be provided there. Parking meters by themselves will not be enough. The extension of this experiment to other cities might be valuable because it may succeed in some places better than others. It will be a good thing to try it in different areas, with different circumstances, because in some cases it may be found that off-street parking may be provided more easily than in others as a result of the installation of parking meters.
Some of us have seen the traffic conditions in the cities referred to, and they vary considerably, and if these cities are allowed, in addition to their other methods of dealing with traffic, to have parking meters it is something which we should welcome, and we should pass the Order.
I will not make any comment on any other methods that one might use because that would be beyond the scope of the Order and you have observed, Mr. Speaker, that the blue disc scheme is hardly a matter to be mentioned now, but apart from the merits or demerits of blue discs I see no reason why we should not extend the provision of parking meters to the cities mentioned in the Order.

11.26 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I think that what I have to say might equally well be said on the subsequent Order, which deals with the extension of these provisions to Scotland. We are discussing the two Orders together—

Mr. Speaker: No. The second Order has not been moved.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I was saying that my remarks could equally well be made on the subsequent Order, but I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would perhaps be more in order for

me to make them now as the Minister responsible for these matters in the Cities of Westminster and London is here and has already spoken.
I share with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) the feeling that the London experiments have not been as completely successful as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would suggest. I do not for one moment claim that owners of property should be insulated against the effects of normal changes in the character of a district, but where those changes are brought about by Government action, and where they could not, therefore, be foreseen even by a prudent property owner, then I think we want to look rather carefully at the matter.
I refer particularly to the designation as parking places of areas outside private property which has undoubtedly in the City of Westminster led to a great loss of amenity by private owners of property and a considerable depreciation in value. That has not been the case in business areas, but it has definitely been the case in residential areas.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which should have been discussed when we were debating the Road Traffic Act, 1956, giving the Minister this power.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what we are seeking to do tonight is to extend these powers to Birmingham and other cities, and I am suggesting that we ought to be careful before allowing these powers to other cities to ensure that some of the features of the London experiments are not repeated in those cities.
I have mentioned the difficulties in central residential areas in London. There are aso difficulties in suburban areas where there has been the experience of kerbside parking, particularly near suburban stations throughout the day, making it impossible for residents to get to their own properties because cars are parked locked along the kerb near the station by commuters to London. I mention these points not because I seek to dissent from the Order—I think it right that these powers should be given—but because we ought to point to the difficulties which have arisen hoping that they will not arise in future cases.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Now that powers are being taken to extend the parking meter schemes to the provinces, there are one or two details that it is worth mentioning as lessons from London.
One complaint that I have received—I have suffered from it myself—is that if one puts Is. into the meter one gets two hours of parking time but if one puts 6d. in one gets only an hour and at the end of the hour, the meter immediately jumps to the 10s. penalty. I cannot see why one should not be able to put a second 6d. into the meter, for which there is no provision at the moment, so that one could get the full two hours before the machine jumped to the 10s. penalty.
The second point is that in Mayfair it is obviously a concomitant of the parking meter scheme that there is a control zone in which the police are supposed to drive parked cars off the road. But they cannot do so at present in that zone because there are no off-street parking places for the motorists to go to. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the erection of any parking meters in the centre of a crowded city requires that off-street parking places should be made available at the same time. That has been realised all along. The Westminster City Council has a plan for erecting a parking garage in North Audley Street at the cost of £500,000, a great deal of money.
Of course, it has always been visualised that the surplus money from the parking meters should be devoted to the cost of these off-street parking garages. We have recently learned, of course, that the surplus money from the meters is going to be subject to tax. Personally, I think that is a great scandal because it was stated by two or three Ministers during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill that the whole surplus from the meters was to be devoted to the building of off-street parking spaces. To my mind, it was quite wrong of the Treasury suddenly to announce that the money is now going to be taxed.
A good deal of capital expenditure is required in putting up these parking meters throughout the provinces and in London and in connection with the erection of off-street parking spaces, which are a concomitant of the meters. As was

mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), a good deal of inconvenience is caused to the occupiers of property adjacent to where parking meters are erected. All these things represent the adverse side of the scheme. I am not opposing the scheme, but they are disadvantages.
I should have liked to have seen one of the cities adopting the Paris blue disc scheme so as to avoid these disadvantages. I would like to see an experiment carried out on those lines, subject, of course, to the details which I have mentioned. I should be interested if my hon. Friend would answer the practical point which I made about the jumping of the parking meter to the 10s. penalty at the end of the hour for which 6d. had been inserted in the meter.
Subject to the points which I have made, I have no doubt that the House will pass this Order and extend it to the provinces.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: May I ask my hon. Friend one question about the Order arising out of the point on enforcement? He will be aware that the relations of these authorities with the police are somewhat different from our relations with the Metropolitan Police. Is my hon. Friend able to make it clear that in enforcement these local authorities will not be in a position to use their local police forces but will be required to use uniformed or other sorts of attendants according to their choice? What is going to be the position of the police forces of these local authorities under the Order?

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: May I have the permission of the House to reply to the points that have been put to me?
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked me some questions about whether we could influence the provincial cities to benefit from the lessons of London. The answer is that we can to a limited extent. We are preparing a memorandum of guidance which will be sent to all local authorities, and to those of these ten cities and towns in particular, which will be a guide to them about parking meter practice based on our London experience. I feel sure that that will be


a help to these ten cities, and, indeed, to others which are contemplating permitting parking meter schemes in the future. That memorandum will be going out very shortly and will cover all the lessons that we have learned from our London experience.
We cannot of course oblige cities to promote their orders in this form, but I am sure they will welcome such guidance as they will get from the memorandum and, at the end of the day, it is for my right hon. Friend to determine whether there shall be a local inquiry and decide whether he will approve an Order and lay it before the House. If the scheme is hopelessly out of line with what seems practicable, my right hon. Friend will certainly use his powers and not approve it.
With regard to the question of the size of scheme, to which the hon. Member referred, local authorities will be advised as to our experience. The point he made is very germane, that if the area is too small the full benefits of the scheme will not be obtained. We shall have to see what size schemes they put up, but we shall give the best guidance we can.
The hon. Member was, of course, perfectly right about enforcement. In themselves these schemes could be perfectly useless unless they are properly enforced. The Metropolitan Police fully understand that. On the whole, enforcement has been good in the Northwest corner of Westminster where the scheme has been tried out.
We have left the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police in no doubt that as the schemes spread there will be additional burdens in enforcement and that to make them really effective the enforcement must be effective. I believe that the police are fully prepared to accept the heavy additional responsibilities which will fall on them in London and, no doubt, in the provincial cities the police are similarly prepared. One of the requirements of the Third Schedule is that the police shall be consulted in each case before a scheme is promoted so that in each of these cities, before a scheme can be promoted, the authority will have had to consult with the police to make sure that enforcement will be effective.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the police will continue to have their functions of enforcement of the law. As to who will be responsible for administration of the meters, that is a matter for the cities concerned, but I presume that they will appoint attendants in the same way as Westminster has done. We are all aware that there has been a great deal of discussion about an alternative approach, by means of traffic wardens who might cover some of these functions. Personally that is an idea I very much favour. I know there are all kinds of difficulties attached to it, but it might be a considerable help. I cannot say more about it now, but our minds are very open to that solution.
Of course, my right hon. Friend must have regard to off-street parking provisions before he approves an order. Section 19 requires that. A number of these cities plans for increasing off-street parking facilities and most of them have a fair amount already. The divisional road engineers have given an indication of what facilities there are by making preliminary reports and most cities have plans for increasing them. These provincial cities are much better placed than Metropolitan boroughs which are making this provision. In the main they are much stronger financially than the Metropolitan borough which has a relatively small area. It is much easier for them to contemplate raising loans to finance these projects than for Metropolitan boroughs. It is certainly a problem for some of them.
My personal view is that as these schemes spread and the police make enforcement effective, the demand for off-street parking by those who want to leave their cars in the centre of towns, whether London or elsewhere, will be such that private enterprise, too, will supply it. Nobody will risk their money in private enterprise ventures when there is the alternative of parking in the street for nothing. I think that we shall get some help in that direction, and I have already heard of one or two quite likely inquiries in London and in these provincial cities, too.
The hon. Member asked whether we had given the fullest consideration to possible alternatives in extending the scheme for the control of parking, which


means in the main by parking meters, to provincial cities. Here I must go carefully, Mr. Speaker, if I am not to get into "the black", although I shall not go very far into "the blue". We have collected fresh information about the possible alternatives and we believe that the parking meter scheme is the best scheme, but that does not mean that my right hon. Friend and I have closed our minds to an alternative. If any of these cities proposes an alternative similar to the Paris scheme we shall be quite ready to consider it, although it would need legislation to introduce it. At present none has suggested such an alternative.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Why would fresh legislation be required? If the blue disc scheme were introduced and charges made, surely that would come within the 1956 Act.

Mr. Nugent: I am advised that it would not and that fresh and complicated legislation would be necessary for a scheme of that nature. That does not mean that our minds are closed to it, but first we must find a town willing to promote such a scheme, and although one or two have considered it, in the end they have decided, for one reason or another, that it would not be appropriate. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). So far no town has offered to make an experiment, but our minds are still open to such experiments if they are offered.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) for supporting the general principle, which I personally feel sure is right, of extending the scheme to provincial cities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said there was depreciation of property because cars are left, locked, standing all day, by commuters outside private residences. To some extent this is mitigated by parking meter schemes because at least the cars will not be standing there all day. They cannot stand there for more than a couple of hours. To that extent there is an improvement. I think that the general principle was well and fully debated in the debates on the Bill, and this principle was acceptable to the House provided that the circumstances were right. I think

that the London experiment has proved that it is generally beneficial and we are therefore justified in extending it to provincial cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked why he should not be allowed to place an extra 6d. in the meter after he had put one in, so that he could leave his car an extra hour without having to pay the excess penalty of 10s. One of the difficulties in the administration of parking meters is to prevent what is called feeding in, by which the owner, having put his car by a meter, slips out every couple of hours and puts in another Is. and so leaves the car there all day. That is quite difficult to police. If it were legitimate to put in an extra sixpence, illegitimate feeding in after the two-hour period would be difficult to detect. Therefore, although I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his plea, I am afraid that it cannot be met. My hon. Friend must make up his mind, when going to the meter, whether he wants to stay for one hour or two, and put in his 6d. or Is. accordingly.
My hon. Friend also asked why the meter revenue is subject to tax. It is subject to tax only if treated on its own. If the meter revenues were used in combination with the financing of off-street garages, those revenues would very rapidly be swallowed up by the losses made in operating the garages, so there would be no question of tax liability arising. The present structure is such that there is the greatest possible incentive for local authorities which are collecting meter revenue to build some off-street garages and to use the revenue from their meters to help finance the garages. In effect, provided they do what the Act asks them to do, there will be no question of tax—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Westminster Council has to borrow £500,000 to build such a place in North Audley Street, would it be able to set off parking meter revenue against the interest on the borrowed money? Is that my hon. Friend's interpretation?

Mr. Nugent: That is undoubtedly so, but naturally the two operations have to be combined in an ordinary profit and loss account. That is the general principle. But my point is that, normally, local authorities will find their receipts


from operating the off-street garages will not be sufficient to meet their cost, even with the help of the revenue from the meters. The question of profit will not therefore arise once they start to provide the off-street garages, as we want them to do.
I hope that with this explanation the House will be prepared to approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 6th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

11.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move.
That the Parking Places (Scotland) (No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 4th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
Just as Section 19 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, provides that the Minister, with the approval of Parliament, may by Order apply Section 19 (1) to any area in England, so Section 19 (8) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State, with the approval of Parliament, may by Order apply Section 19 (1) to any area in Scotland.
The purpose of the present Order is to apply subsection (1) to the County of the City of Edinburgh. If approved, it will be the first step in a procedure that will ultimately enable the Secretary of State, on the application of the Edinburgh Corporation, to designate parking places on highways for vehicles in Edinburgh, and to enable the Corporation to make charges for vehicles left in those parking places. The next step will be for Edinburgh to apply for an Order under Section 19 (1) of the 1956 Act.
In Scotland, only Edinburgh has so far applied for an enabling order. Parliament has already approved in principle that parking meters should be provided in suitable areas, and the effect of the Order, if made, will be to give Parliamentary endorsement to Edinburgh Corporation's view that that city is a suitable area. At a later stage, the House may wish to examine in detail the places where Edinburgh proposes to put the meters, but that will not arise until

a subsequent order is applied for by the Edinburgh Corporation.
The procedure for the local authority to make application is laid down in the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, and the order designating the parking places will be subject to negative Resolution procedure. The House will thus have a full opportunity of discussing the details then. All we are asking tonight is that the House should make it possible for Edinburgh to prepare and submit a scheme for parking places under Section 19 (1) of the 1956 Act.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I should like some information from the Joint Under-Secretary. The Order says nothing about parking meters. It authorises the Secretary of State in due course to authorise the City of Edinburgh to make charges for parking in the City. I am not going into the question whether parking meters will be obligatory when the Order is passed, but I gather they will not be and that the Secretary of State may make some other order under another part of the relevant Section of the Act.
On the question of charging for parking places in Edinburgh, I think everyone who has had any experience of Edinburgh will agree that something is necessary to stop the complete occupation of the streets by parked cars. I cannot understand how shopkeepers in Edinburgh are able to carry on their business in a normal way today, because nobody coming into Edinburgh from outside by car can stop at any shop in the centre of the city in order to make a purchase.
Edinburgh is completely occupied. In George Street the sides and the centre of the street are occupied, and so are the sides of Princes Street. If a person wants to shop by car he has to go out of Edinburgh and find a part of the pavement where he can stop. That has arisen because the occupants of cars drive to their business premises in the morning, and park their cars in the streets until their offices close in the evening. This problem is especially important in Edinburgh because we expect visitors to arrive from all over the world, not only at the time of the Festival but all through the summer season.
This question of parking cars all day has become an appalling problem for the police, shopkeepers and everyone else. There is no dispute about the necessity to do something about it. What we do not understand is why it is necessary to have the streets covered with parking meters. I should like the Under-Secretary to give us an idea of what is contemplated. Is the whole of Charlotte Square to have a circle of parking meters? I should imagine that there might be 200 cars parked in Charlotte Square on a Saturday forenoon. There must be several hundred cars along George Street. There must be another 200 or 300 cars in St. Andrew's Square. Does it mean that wherever a car is parked there is going to be a parking meter? Edinburgh has fortunately got rid of the electric tram wires that disfigured it for so many years. But is the whole of Edinburgh to be disfigured by these little pillars standing along George Street, round Charlotte Square, St. Andrew's Square and along Princes Street, or what is contemplated under this Order?
At present, every motorist is charged for a parking place in Edinburgh, not by the corporation but by parking attendants. They work a system of their own, which is quite effective, and they collect money from the motorists. I do not see any reason why money should not be collected from the motorists for the corporation. Even if we have parking meters, somebody has still got to see that fines are collected if a motorist breaks the law. In other words, we have got to have enforcement.
Everyone who goes to the seaside knows that there are plenty of places where one is charged so much an hour for sitting on a seat. I think at Brighton, Margate and such places collectors issue tickets and come round again after a certain period has elapsed. One is allowed an hour or two as the case may be; but that has to be done, even if the parking meter is there. The police are present to enforce the waiting times—I think a motorist is allowed ten minutes—and if the period is longer than that they warn the motorist. They are very polite about it, but my point is that it is just as easy to collect the money without these meters if only we have a proper system.
What I wish to ask is what alternatives will be considered before permission is given for Edinburgh to be cluttered up with parking meters? If the meters are to be around Charlotte Square, it will mean cluttering up George Street and Princes Street with cars. It seems to me that it will solve no problem. I agree that those people who leave cars all day should have to rent part of the street and that those using cars for shopping and other purposes should be able to use the streets freely. It will be very helpful if we can have some more information.
A good many alternatives should be considered. The Waverley Market is unoccupied for much of the week and it might be possible to take a lot of the cars off the street and charge for parking there. There was a scheme for using part of the Princes Street Gardens near the Waverley Bridge for parking purposes. Put a parking place under the gardens, dig into the ivy and put the cars out of sight, with some chance of making a substantial clearance of the streets. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give us a picture of Edinburgh in the future, we shall be better able to judge the best way for us to proceed in this matter.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: This Order is for the purpose of carrying out decisions made by the magistrates in Edinburgh in respect of a certain area of the new town. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, these very fine streets in the new town of Edinburgh have become almost impassable and the magistrates have recommended to the Corporation a scheme covering George Street, St. Andrew's Square, Charlotte Square, and the adjacent streets. Yet, I am not so certain that my right hon. Friend is correct in all the fears which he has expressed tonight. I understand that the parking should be mainly concentrated around the centre of the Charlotte Square; in which case, I am not so sure that parking meters would disfigure it. After all, we already have iron railings round the square and, in my view, parking meters on the same site will not tend to disfigure it much more. The same applies to St. Andrew's Square, and in George Street I understand that the parking will be centre parking.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but instead of the little pillars, could not parking meters be built into the pavement, so that they will not be a disfigurement when vehicles are not parked there?

Mr. Willis: Unfortunately, we do not have these other things and the traffic problem in Edinburgh is urgent. We cannot wait very long, because our traffic is already throttled along George Street and in practically every street leading up to it. Therefore, we must do something quickly.
If it were possible to have something other than parking meters and to get it fairly quickly, I would agree; but I am not certain that the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend are altogether justified. In any case, Edinburgh being Edinburgh, there will, no doubt, be a big dispute that will occupy columns of the Press concerning the placing of further street furniture in the new town. My right hon. Friend can be assured of that and that all the arguments will be brought to bear so far as they relate to this matter before the scheme is finally approved.
One or two things occur to me when I consider the scheme for Edinburgh. I hope that the scheme does not go down into Princes Street. I understand that the proposals that have been made do not include Princes Street. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that that does not happen, first, because of the need for people to draw up to the shopping side, and secondly, for the purpose of the through traffic that uses Princes Street in considerable volume.
It was mentioned in the previous debate that if we are to have this scheme in the new town, obviously the Corporation must provide off-street parking places. At present, I understand, the Corporation has it in mind to do something at the top of Leith Street and around Edinburgh Castle to provide additional parking facilities, for which there would be no parking charges and which would not be subject to the normal police regulation. I am not certain, however, that that is enough.
There are considerable older properties in the centre part of the town, between George Street and Princes Street and between George Street and Queen Street, some of which could come down and the space used either as parking

places or for the building of garages. At the time when it was suggested that we should have public parking places under or in Princes Street Gardens, it was discovered as the result of a survey that there were 200 vacant garage places in the centre of the town. I do not know whether that would cope with the cars that will be moved from the centre as a result of the scheme which causes this Order to be placed before us. I very much doubt it. In any event, that amount of garage space is available.
In addition, the Edinburgh Corporation must consider the question of off-street parking much more urgently than it has done so far. Anyone who is familiar with the area knows that with the introduction of the parking-meter scheme to be sanctioned under the Order, people will drift further down the hill. We shall then simply have transferred the parking problem from George Street down to Herriot Road and further down. These streets themselves are becoming important through streets in Edinburgh. That is one of the urgent needs in Edinburgh.
I hope that in the solving of any of these problems that arise as a result of the introduction of the scheme and as a result of the fact that more and more cars come into the centre of the town, there will be no suggestion that either the public gardens or the private gardens, or Queen Street Gardens or any of the other amenities in the centre of the town, will be used for the purpose of providing parking places. We can, I think, solve this problem in Edinburgh without destroying the amenities that we possess and I sincerely trust that on no account will pressures be exerted on the Corporation to take over any of these open spaces for that purpose.
Dealing with the previous Order, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said that he was circularising local authorities concerned with the results of the scheme in the West End of London, and the lessons that had been learned. Is that also to be done for local authorities in Scotland? Other local authorities might be considering schemes. I do not know whether Glasgow may. in the end, have to consider a scheme. Certainly, Edinburgh wishes to.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Could the Joint Under-Secretary say why this Order is confined to the City of Edinburgh? I gather that it is because Edinburgh has asked that this Order might be made to enable it to submit a detailed scheme which would be subject to discussion in the House at a later date. In preparing the Order I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have consulted other cities, if not the large burghs, and, in particular, the City of Glasgow where the parking problem is probably more serious than in Edinburgh. If he had extended this Order to Glasgow it would not have put any obligation on Glasgow to bring forward an application for a further Order to identify the places where the authorities wanted charges to be made. Will the Joint Under-Secretary say whether the Secretary of State has consulted Glasgow and the other cities, and if not, why not?

12.7 a.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: If I may deal with the last question first, I would say that the lessons learned from the Mayfair experiment have been discussed with various authorities, and Edinburgh is the only one which at the moment has expressed a desire for the provisions of the Statute to be extended to it. It is just as well to have a pilot scheme in Scotland, as in England. As the English pilot scheme has been in the Metropolis it is not incongruous that in Scotland, too, it should be in the capital.
Regarding the circulation of the lessons learned in Mayfair, this is being done and will continue to be done. We have not yet had a complete year with the Mayfair scheme.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) what alternatives are to be considered before the Secretary of State agrees to a parking-meter scheme. Unlike one of his hon. Friends, the right hon Gentleman expressed some doubt about the possibility of preserving amenities with a parking scheme. The only alternative that can be considered under the Act is provided for in Section 20 (5), which states:
Where no such apparatus is in use, the order designating a parking place may provide

that the initial charge shall be payable on the vehicle being taken away from the parking place….
and so on. That is the only alternative that can be considered under the Act. But, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said, if any other proposals are put forward they would be considered, but they would require legislation, and it might be complicated legislation. They would require legislation to enable charges to be made.

Mr. T. Fraser: I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and could not understand him. Section 20 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, says:
If it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description …
But only "if", and I should have thought that under Section 20 the Secretary of State can prescribe the apparatus, and under subsection (5), where no such apparatus is in use, a charge can be made for a standard period. Why, therefore, does the Under-Secretary say that if an Order is to be made without apparatus of a prescribed description being in use new legislation is needed?

Mr. Macpherson: All I can say is that the advice given to us is that that is the case. The hon. Member is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. It should be on the words
…there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description …
I can only tell the House of the advice I have been given. We are advised, for example, that if there is a proposal that there should be a scheme such as the blue disc scheme operating in Paris, it would require legislation.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary would ask some of the Scottish lawyers to look at this and get it put right.

Mr. Macpherson: The Scottish lawyers have already given the same advice as the English lawyers have given the Minister. The right hon. Member will see that subsection (5) goes on to say:
…where such provision is made subsection (3) of this section shall apply with the substitution, for the reference to the period for which payment was made by the initial charge, of a reference to the standard period.


In other words, there can be a standard period and a charge made. That is the alternative under the Act, but we were talking about other alternatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) wants to interrupt more than is necessary. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire asked what alternatives there were, and I said there was only one under the Act. I specified what it was and said what others would involve.
In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I would say that there is general agreement that something must be done about traffic in Edinburgh. There is parking space in the central area for approximately 1,000 vehicles, and private parking space is negligible. When a count was taken in July, 1955, it showed that over a period of five hours 60,000 vehicles entered or left the centre of the city—and there is space for 1,000 to park. In addition, as the hon. Member mentioned, the Corporation has in mind to provide authorised parking space for a further 500 vehicles near the central area in Castle Terrace.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into details as to where it is intended to provide parking space. The Corporation has not yet expressed a final view on the matter. It would be appropriate to leave discussion of that until we consider the Order if, at a later date, Edinburgh applies for an Order to be made. I think that this short debate has shown that there is abundant support for extending these powers to Edinburgh. Indeed the hon. Member for Hamilton has asked why they were not extended still further. I do not think that the House will find any difficulty in agreeing to the Order.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: We should have some information. No doubt it may be desirable, but why has Edinburgh been selected? Is it simply because Edinburgh asked? [An. HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Surely there has been some investigation into what exactly would happen as the result of the application of this Order.
We have not been given any such information tonight. What we have been given is what we already knew—that

there is a parking problem in Edinburgh and in many towns and cities over the country. From past debates we know that one of the results of Edinburgh using this power in respect of parking places and introducing meters will be to reduce the actual number of cars which will be parked at any one time. I am concerned about that situation.
Surely the Government must be satisfied that the overall problem will be eased by the action of Edinburgh in using these powers. I know that this is only the first stage and that later we shall have an opportunity of finding out the details of what is proposed in the way of parking places with meters, but surely we should be given some idea of the Government's intentions in giving local authorities these enabling powers and told whether any conditions are to be attached about how the overall parking problem is eventually to be met. In other words, do we glibly give these powers to Edinburgh and then equally easily pass through the House some detailed scheme without any relation at all to how overall parking facilities, either on the street or off the street, are to be provided in Edinburgh?
A lot depends on where these places are. While the present situation may be a nuisance for shoppers and so on, we have equally to realise that the centre of Edinburgh is a matter of tourist attraction and it is not always possible to estimate how long sightseeing will take. I remember going to Edinburgh Castle and leaving the car outside, but it took us much longer than two hours to get round the Castle because there was a holiday in Glasgow and there was a long queue.

Mr. Willis: There is to be private car parking space at or around the Castle.

Mr. Ross: Yes, without parking meters.

Mr. Willis: Off-street parking.

Mr. Ross: That is feasible, but I was pointing out that one cannot estimate how long it will take to see the sights and glories of Edinburgh, and the glories of Edinburgh can be viewed, as my hon. Friend well knows, from places within very easy reach of the actual parking sites which are to be suggested for designation.
While I do not think any husband will object to having to tell his wife, "We have only an hour to get out of Princes Street," it may well be that many shopkeepers and certainly many of the would-be customers from overseas will be hampered, and we should look very carefully at the question of provision near the shopping centre as a condition of any further procedure in respect of off-street parking.
From the points of view of the tourist, the visitor, the shopkeeper and the popularity of Edinburgh with motorists, it is absolutely essential that this should be done, and I am sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary did not make it clear that he was concerned too about the wellbeing of the city in respect of that. I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman if I am right in assuming that, before anything more is done, we shall need a designation by the Edinburgh Corporation, that that will have to come back to this House and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss further just what exactly is to be done on a more detailed basis.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. G. Wilson: I do not wish to delay the House, but as an English Member whose father was born in Edinburgh I should hate to think that the people of Edinburgh were suffering under the Road Traffic Act. The parking meter provisions of that Act were expressly designed not only to reduce the time for which parking took place in particular streets, but also to provide money for off-street parking so that there would be more and not less space.
The experience in all parts of the world has been that whenever parking meters have been introduced there has been apprehension that they would produce all sorts of difficulties. But in both Europe and America the public has found after a period of trial that the parking meter is a very popular device which assists and does not obstruct. That is the common experience in many countries, and I am sure that that will be the experience in Scotland too. I hope that these parking meters will produce the money with which to provide parking space for the car of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

12.22 a.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: If I may, I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I tried to make it clear when I spoke on the first occasion that the House can have a further opportunity to discuss the actual details when Edinburgh finally makes an application for a scheme. That scheme can come before the House in the form of an Order which the House will be able to pray against.
Before applying for such an Order—and I would just give the hon. Gentleman the safeguards in this, because I think it is more appropriate that I should say what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to consider when the time comes rather than what he has already considered—the Corporation must consult the chief constable. The Corporation is also required to publish in the Edinburgh Gazette and one other newspaper an advertisement stating the general effect of the proposed Order, the places where copies of it may be seen and the time within which objections may be lodged with the Secretary of State.
The local authority is also required to take such other steps as appear to be reasonably practicable to bring the matter to the attention of persons likely to be specially affected, and the Secretary of State has power to ensure that this is done to his satisfaction and also to extend the time for lodging objections. After that, the Secretary of State considers the application together with any objections to it, and he may hold a public inquiry if he considers such a procedure desirable.
The Secretary of State may then make an Order, either in the terms proposed or subject to such modification as he thinks fit, and the Order has to be laid before the House. There is no doubt that there will be the fullest consideration of the question.
As I said in opening the debate, it would be more appropriate to discuss these matters when we come to debate the actual Order for the parking places rather than at the present time.
I think, as I said before, it is generally agreed that something has to be done. I would only add in response to the invitation of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that our Chief Road Engineer agrees that the congestion, at least in the St. Andrew's Square and


Charlotte Square areas, is sufficient to justify the introduction of parking meters and to proceed with the present Order so that the matter can be examined in greater detail when the Corporation's proposals are formally submitted.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Scotland) (No. 1) Order, 1959, dated 4th May, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

STATE PUBLIC HOUSES (DISMISSED MANAGERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

12.25 a.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I am glad to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise the case of my constituents, the dismissed former public house managers of the Carlisle State Management Scheme. The subject of this debate is essentially a human one and not an ideological one. None the less, I feel unable to raise the matter without being mindful of the fact that only five days ago I was sitting on these benches listening to the debate on the firm of S. G. Brown in which a substantial part of the issues involved were the respective merits of the position of employees as between nationalised and capitalist industries, and each side of the House had its point of view.
On this side we argued that employees of capitalist industry were better off and on the other side the argument was the reverse, in favour of nationalised industry. It is very cold comfort to me that in the circumstances of this debate I have to demonstrate that the fate and treatment of these men is conclusive proof of our contention from this side of the House and one might almost say a classic instance of how poorly employees can fare at the hands of nationalised industry.
My first duty is to state the basic facts of the case and to put them on record at the risk of telling my hon. Friend facts with which he is familiar. These managers were employees of the Carlisle State Management Scheme. They were employed on a contract basis, but none

the less, they were civil servants and members of the Civil Service Union which has stood by them very staunchly indeed in the troubles I am about to recount.
The history of the case starts over a period of years during which the contention of the managers and their union is that undue pressure was brought to bear on them by the administration of the scheme that they should produce surplus profit over and above that profit of the normal wholesale-retail margin. It was as a result of this agitation and the pressure of the union and others— partly, I seem to remember, myself — that the Home Office set up an inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Cyril Burt Q.C., in 1957. We regarded it as unfortunate that that inquiry was held in private and not in public as was requested at the time. However, it was held and Mr. Burt reported in May, 1957. His Report was published by the Stationery Office as Command Paper 168.
His conclusions in this instance were that the case put forward by the union and the managers had not been proved. He concluded that no pressure such as was suggested had been brought to bear on the managers in regard to surplus profits. It should be stated that these conclusions were unacceptable to the managers and their union. I have been asked to state that before and after the publication of Mr. Burt's findings the Home Office has refused the opportunity to discuss with the union and with the managers any matter relating to this so-called surplus profit and, in particular, no indication was given to the managers what profit should be achieved by their respective houses. No figures of stocktaking results have been placed at their disposal.
We come to the next stage of the story, and in this we have clearly to differentiate two separate issues. Shortly after the Burt Report, police investigations started, and after eight months of the attention of Scotland Yard a number of managers were convicted of minor defalcations before the Carlisle magistrates' court. I wish to make it clear that this is an entirely separate group of managers from those we are discussing tonight. They are clearly differentiated from the men whose case I am bringing forward.
The group whose case I am bringing forward were almost simultaneously the subject of a separate disciplinary action by the Home Office. This was brought against seven of them, who are members of the Civil Service Union. As a consequence, five of them were dismissed and two were severely reprimanded.
It has apparently been made clear to the managers and their union that there is no question of alleged dishonesty in their case and that it is entirely a matter of alleged inefficiency. That was the reason for their dismissal. My hon. and learned Friend would help in the situation considerably if in his reply he would confirm that, in view of a number of misconceptions which seem to exist on this subject.
These seven managers whom we are discussing are all employees of long standing. They include the branch secretary, the branch treasurer, the assistant branch secretary and a national executive committee member of the local branch of the Civil Service Union.
The first charge put to them was that for a fifteen-month period during 1957–58 the results disclosed that the surpluses returned had fallen far below what could reasonably be expected, having regard to the nature of the trade and the surpluses returned by other public houses in the Carlisle district. At no time did the Home Office produce any evidence in respect of the results which were returned by other public houses in Carlisle so that the accuracy of that statement could be directly checked. I asked a Question on this subject in November, 1958, but unfortunately was not given a reply which in any respect was informative in this connection.
Later, following, I understand, pressure from the union, the charges were revised and the men were told how far short of a reasonable minimum their surpluses had fallen. There is a list, which is known to those of us who have been concerned with the case, which shows that they had to some extent fallen short of the 5 per cent. net surplus profit on the sale of beer which was expected. The figures vary from Mr. White, at The Friar's Tavern, who produced only 1·7 per cent. surplus, to

Mr. Quinn, at the Cumberland Inn, who produced a surplus of 3 per cent., and Mr. Baxter, at the Inglewood Forest, who produced a surplus of 3·29 per cent. These were compared with the 5 per cent. surplus which they were apparently expected to produce. However, one has to make it quite clear that, unless my hon. and learned Friend can show to the contrary, that 5 per cent. is purely notional, and we are unable to get any figures from other public houses that would in any way substantiate it.
I maintain that in the action taken of dismissing this group of managers there was, despite what was said by Mr. Burt in his Report, undue pressure brought on managers of the scheme to produce surplus profits, and on that count the Burt inquiry has, in effect, been rendered null and void. A case exists for a public inquiry into the running of the scheme as a whole and, certainly, an inquiry into the circumstances of the dismissal of these men, so that we can have more facts than are at present available.
It is the view of those of us who put forward these men's case that such an inquiry would not only support these allegations of undue pressure, but would also indicate inevitably, in view of their long service, that there must have been some laxity in not allowing these questions to be brought out sooner or, alternatively, this having been left so long, that there must have been some animosity or ill-feeling towards the men that may have dictated this decision.
This is, above all, a human problem. These men are all over 50 years of age. They have given years of faithful service to the scheme. Mr. Quinn has given 27 years, and Mr. Baxter 24 years. If some measure of inefficiency—which we do not, of course, admit, failing production of further facts—had been detected, I understand that there is a procedure available under the Superannuation Act for premature retirement in honourable circumstances, with full pension rights and so on.
Instead of that, they have had the harsh treatment which I have detailed. They have been abruptly dismissed. They are left jobless, and without the appropriate character references needed to get another job. In the circumstances, they are unable to find other, similar jobs in Carlisle, because the State scheme is a


monopoly there. Only this morning I received a letter from Mr. Quinn telling me that he has applied for numerous jobs but has been completely unable to find one.
Constitutionally, it seems that these men fall between two stools. They have not had the security of tenure of the civil servant but they have no had the benefit of being employees of private industry either. Perhaps the Home Office may have felt that this was contractual employment and that it could act as a private employer might act by dismissing an employee on contract. With that in mind, not being an employer of labour myself, I asked the printer who prints my books what would happen were he, as a private employer, to take similar action in respect of one of his men who had served him for 27 years and had been secretary of a union. His reply was to the effect that not only would such action bring all the men out in his works, but that he would run the risk—and I would mention that I raised this question with him six months ago—of bringing the entire printing industry out in the country.
It is fortunate that the union in question is not able to bring out the entire Civil Service on behalf of these men, and it is no part of their principles that they should do so. But we have this debate in which to put these men's case forward, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to look at this matter, first as a human problem of fair play, and secondly in the light of the working of the scheme for the future as well as the position of the present managers who are working in the scheme under this shadow. There is great concern about these men not only in Carlisle but throughout the licensing trade in general, and in union circles. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me some reassurance.

12.41 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I welcome this opportunity of putting into proper perspective the dismissal of the Carlisle public house managers. Since their dismissal last year the matter has been given a good deal of publicity and has been much distorted, but when the facts are looked at objectively I think hon. Members

will feel, as anyone who has considered the matter feels, that it was manifestly in the public interest that these men should be dismissed from the service of the Crown.
There are 163 public houses and hotels in the Carlisle State management district. Each has its own manager. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) has pointed out, ten of these were convicted of fraud and they were dismissed following their convictions. As a separate batch, there were eight other managers against whom disciplinary action was taken, which I will describe. Of them two were severely reprimanded and down-graded and six were dismissed. I think I should mention that it is only in the case of those two batches—the ten convicted of fraud and the eight against whom disciplinary action was taken—that there has had to be action taken, and that so far as the remainder of the 160 or so managers are concerned there has been, so far as I know, no complaint among them, and no complaint by authority, of their activity.
To deal first with the suggestion that there has been some injustice in the dismissal of the five people to whom my hon. Friend referred, these managers were, of course, civil servants. There is in the Civil Service a recognised disciplinary procedure which is agreed with the Staff Side, and, incidentally, the Staff Side includes the Civil Service Union which is the staff association representing these managers. That procedure ensures that in the case of a civil servant a decision to dismiss is not made unfairly or hastily or without due consideration of the civil servant's point of view.
Briefly the procedure is this. When a disciplinary charge is made against an officer he is given in advance a written statement defining the charge and setting out the particulars of the facts relied upon to support it. He has to submit a written reply to the charge, but where there is a conflict between the charge and the written reply, the civil servant may put his case orally before a suitable senior officer in his own department, other than his immediate superior. He may have the assistance of a friend or colleague who can be a representative of the association when putting his case orally.
This procedure was scrupulously complied with in the Carlisle case. Indeed, it was more than fully complied with, if I may put it in that way. It was thought appropriate in the circumstances to appoint a disciplinary board, which is a part of the procedure, to hear them. This board consisted of senior officers from London and not from the Carlisle management.
Moreover, as the Civil Service Union had suggested that these particular managers were being victimised by the Home Office, it was thought appropriate that two members of the board, including the chairman, should be chosen from outside the Home Office and that there should be only one Home Office member. Accordingly the members of the Board comprised the Controller-General of the Stationery Office, the Principal Establishment Officer of the Home Office and a senior official of the Customs and Excise Department. This, I would point out to my hon. Friend, goes beyond the normal practice. In addition, the Home Office agreed at once to the union's request that two of the union's headquarters officers, and not one as prescribed by normal procedure, should foe allowed to assist the managers in the presentation of their cases to the board.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend has suggested, and at the request of the union and the managers, a great deal of supplementary information about the trading returns of the public houses was supplied to the managers from confidential official records to help them with their defence.
The disciplinary board was charged with the task of hearing the managers' oral answers to the charges made against them and the charges were in all cases that, following repeated warnings of unsatisfactory trading returns, the managers had failed by a substantial amount and over a considerable period to produce for payment into Exchequer funds the money which could reasonably have been expected from the sales of liquor at the public houses which it was their duty to manage. Large sums of money were in involved and the losses to the Exchequer were many times more than those involved in the cases of the second batch of managers who were dismissed at about the same time.
The board sat in Carlisle for about three days and heard the explanation of the managers. The board also allowed the union representatives full scope for dealing not only with the indivdiual cases of the managers, but also with more general points which they wished to advance, and which my hon. Friend has mentioned this evening. In the course of the lengthy proceedings, all sorts of detailed points—for example, control arrangements and staff supervision—and indeed every conceivable reason for the losses, were exhaustively examined. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the union representatives went out of their way to thank the board for the fair hearing given to the managers and their representatives.
The decision to dismiss the managers was taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, personally, in the light of the board's report, which included a full record of the managers' replies and the points made on their behalf by the union representatives. This decision was taken after the fullest possible consideration of all these matters, and I would like here to stress the fact the proceedings before a disciplinary board are not in the nature of a trial or an inquiry. The purpose is simply to give an employee a full opportunity to explain his conduct to representatives of his employer. It follows that they are of a private character and it would be inappropriate and contrary to accepted practice to publish a report of them.
Although the Civil Service disciplinary procedure does not provide for any appeal against a decision to dismiss, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider any further written representations which the managers might wish to make. They made such representations, and the Home Secretary also considered further representations made on their behalf by the union and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. After very careful consideration of these further representations, the Home Secretary came to the conclusion that there was no ground for varying the original decision and he so informed the managers and the union.
There is no doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind that the charges against the managers were established up to the hilt and that in view of their serious


nature and the heavy losses to the Exchequer for which these men were responsible, amounting to well over £1,000, dismissal with all its consequences was the only appropriate penalty. There has been ample confirmation of his decision from our experience since those dismissals. Each one of the public houses in question is now regularly producing results as good as, and mostly better than, the standard by which the dismissed managers were judged and of which they fell short. It would be a slander on the successors to those managers and on the many managers of the other public houses in the scheme who produce reasonable results to suggest that this improvement is due to short measure.
On that issue, having listened to my hon. Friend tonight, I must say that nothing has happened to invalidate the findings of Mr. Burt, Q.C., who held the inquiry of a more general nature before these disciplinary proceedings were taken.
My hon. Friend invited me to comment on his statement that no dishonesty was involved concerning the managers to whom he referred. It is true to say that they were dismissed for inefficiency and only the managers themselves can say how the bad results were arrived at.
It is right that I should add that my right hon. Friend is convinced that justice has been done. He is not prepared to reopen the cases of the managers, nor is he prepared to order

any further inquiry, in public or in private.
In conclusion, I should, perhaps, say a word about some more specific points that were mentioned by my hon. Friend. I deal with the question of the surplus. The existence of a natural surplus on the sale of beer is well known generally throughout the trade, but whatever may or may not happen in privately-owned public houses, we know from experience in the Carlisle State management district that a natural surplus is an inevitable result of the sale of drink. It might almost be said to be one of the facts of life in the drink trade and it occurs without any resort to any practice which smacks of dishonest trading.
The existence of this natural surplus in the course of ordinary trading was referred to by Mr. Burt in his report. He also drew attention in that report to an admission by the Civil Service Union representative who gave evidence before him of the inevitability of this natural surplus.
As Mr. Burt found, there is no question of pressure being placed on managers to give short measure or to make undue profits. If, however, the trading returns of a public house fall consistently short of expectation, there is something wrong which calls for explanation. Explanation was called for in this case and it was not satisfactorily forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.